Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-01784/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-01784-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 470
Nature of Suit: Civil (Rico)
Cause of Action: 18:1961 Racketeering (RICO) Act

---

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Anthony Camboni 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

MGM Grand Hotel, LLC, et al. 

Defendants. 

No. CV11-1784-PHX DGC

ORDER 

 Plaintiff has filed a motion to amend his complaint. Doc. 47. The Court 

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 

Case 2:11-cv-01784-DGC Document 52 Filed 08/09/12 Page 1 of 2
- 2 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

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. 

Case 2:11-cv-01784-DGC Document 52 Filed 08/09/12 Page 2 of 2