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)

Download PDF
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-

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?