Camboni et al v. MGM Grand Hotel LLC et al

Filing 52

ORDER denying 47 Plaintiff's Motion to Amend/Correct; denying 48 Motion to Amend/Correct judgment and Motion for New Trial. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 8/9/12.(DMT)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

Anthony Camboni

No. CV11-1784-PHX DGC
Plaintiff,

10
11

v.

12

ORDER

MGM Grand Hotel, LLC, et al.

13
14

Defendants.
Plaintiff has filed a motion to amend his complaint.

Doc. 47.

The Court

15

previously dismissed Plaintiff’s complaint with prejudice. Doc. 45. The Court explained

16

that pro se litigants are entitled to notice of a complaint’s deficiencies and an opportunity

17

to amend unless it is “absolutely clear that the deficiencies cannot be cured by

18

amendment.” Id. at 9. The Court concluded that it was absolutely clear in this case that

19

the deficiencies of Plaintiff’s complaint – untimely filing under the applicable four-year

20

statute of limitations and Plaintiff’s failure to allege any unlawful conduct – could not be

21

cured by amendment. Id.

22

Plaintiff now asserts that he failed to plead several issues (Doc. 47 at 2), but he

23

does not identify these issues or provide the Court with any basis to reconsider its prior

24

judgment. Plaintiff argues excusable neglect because he is not a licensed attorney and he

25

was faced with several life issues such as moving to a new city and selling his residence

26

that kept him from devoting time to his complaint. Doc. 47 at 2-3. But Plaintiff has had

27

more than ample time to make his claims. Plaintiff filed his complaint on September 9,

28

2011 – nearly eleven months ago – for alleged wrongful actions that took place more than

1

four years earlier. Doc. 1. Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on February 24, 2012

2

(Doc. 7), and received two extensions of time for completing service on Defendants and

3

an extension of time to respond to the motion to dismiss. See Doc. 39. Plaintiff has

4

received prior warnings that he must comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,

5

including timely filing. Id. at 1, 4. Over the course of eleven months and an amended

6

complaint, Plaintiff has failed to present any viable claims, and his motion to amend adds

7

no information that would change this outcome. The Court will deny Plaintiff’s motion

8

to amend his complaint.

9

Plaintiff has also filed a motion to alter or amend judgment and motion for a new

10

trial which the Court will construe as a motion for reconsideration. Doc. 48. Motions for

11

reconsideration “are ‘disfavored’ and will be granted only upon a showing of ‘manifest

12

error’ or ‘new facts or legal authority that could not have been raised earlier with

13

reasonable diligence.’” In re Rosson, 545 F.3d 764, 769 (9th Cir. 2008) (citation and

14

brackets omitted); see S.E.C. v. Kuipers, No. 09-36016, 2010 WL 3735788, at *3 (9th

15

Cir. Sept. 21, 2010); LRCiv 7.2(g)(1). Plaintiff does not meet this standard. Plaintiff

16

asserts the same generalized reasons for excusable neglect that he asserted in his motion

17

to amend, but he utterly fails to state any reason why the Court’s prior order was in error

18

or to provide any new facts or legal authority that would support Plaintiff’s claims. The

19

Court will deny Plaintiff’s motion.

20
21
22

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff Anthony Camboni’s motion to amend (Doc. 47)
and motion to alter or amend judgment and motion for a new trial (Doc. 48) are denied.
Dated this 9th day of August, 2012.

23
24
25
26
27
28
-2-