Camboni et al v. MGM Grand Hotel LLC et al
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)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
No. CV11-1784-PHX DGC
MGM Grand Hotel, LLC, et al.
Plaintiff has filed a motion to amend his complaint.
previously dismissed Plaintiff’s complaint with prejudice. Doc. 45. The Court explained
that pro se litigants are entitled to notice of a complaint’s deficiencies and an opportunity
to amend unless it is “absolutely clear that the deficiencies cannot be cured by
amendment.” Id. at 9. The Court concluded that it was absolutely clear in this case that
the deficiencies of Plaintiff’s complaint – untimely filing under the applicable four-year
statute of limitations and Plaintiff’s failure to allege any unlawful conduct – could not be
cured by amendment. Id.
Plaintiff now asserts that he failed to plead several issues (Doc. 47 at 2), but he
does not identify these issues or provide the Court with any basis to reconsider its prior
judgment. Plaintiff argues excusable neglect because he is not a licensed attorney and he
was faced with several life issues such as moving to a new city and selling his residence
that kept him from devoting time to his complaint. Doc. 47 at 2-3. But Plaintiff has had
more than ample time to make his claims. Plaintiff filed his complaint on September 9,
2011 – nearly eleven months ago – for alleged wrongful actions that took place more than
four years earlier. Doc. 1. Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on February 24, 2012
(Doc. 7), and received two extensions of time for completing service on Defendants and
an extension of time to respond to the motion to dismiss. See Doc. 39. Plaintiff has
received prior warnings that he must comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
including timely filing. Id. at 1, 4. Over the course of eleven months and an amended
complaint, Plaintiff has failed to present any viable claims, and his motion to amend adds
no information that would change this outcome. The Court will deny Plaintiff’s motion
to amend his complaint.
Plaintiff has also filed a motion to alter or amend judgment and motion for a new
trial which the Court will construe as a motion for reconsideration. Doc. 48. Motions for
reconsideration “are ‘disfavored’ and will be granted only upon a showing of ‘manifest
error’ or ‘new facts or legal authority that could not have been raised earlier with
reasonable diligence.’” In re Rosson, 545 F.3d 764, 769 (9th Cir. 2008) (citation and
brackets omitted); see S.E.C. v. Kuipers, No. 09-36016, 2010 WL 3735788, at *3 (9th
Cir. Sept. 21, 2010); LRCiv 7.2(g)(1). Plaintiff does not meet this standard. Plaintiff
asserts the same generalized reasons for excusable neglect that he asserted in his motion
to amend, but he utterly fails to state any reason why the Court’s prior order was in error
or to provide any new facts or legal authority that would support Plaintiff’s claims. The
Court will deny Plaintiff’s motion.
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.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?