winecup gamble ranch lawsuit

Finally, Union Pacific requests leave to serve Rule 36 requests to establish admissibility of certain evidence. Cases involving other real property matters not classified elsewhere, (#8) Streamlined request [7] by Appellant Winecup Gamble, Inc. to extend time to file the brief is approved. ECF No. 7125918, at *24 (D. Nev. Dec. 4,, Full title:UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY, a Delaware corporation, Plaintiff, v, Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA. The Court recognizes that "[i]t is time-consuming when counsel circulate exhibits among the jurors, and it disrupts the examination of witnesses, except where the physical qualities of an object are themselves relevant." 107 Ex. 151) is denied without prejudice. 152. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Union Pacific's tenth motion in limine requesting that the Court instruct the jury before trial about certain laws that apply to Nevada dam owners (ECF No. The schedule is set as follows: Appellant Winecup Gamble, Inc. 1980)). Whether an Act of God caused 23 Mile dam's failure and subsequent flooding and damage to Union Pacific's railroad tracks is an issue of fact for the jury. Id. 1989) (reviewing the district court's interpretation of a contract de novo). This communication will be kept confidential, if requested, and should not be filed with the court. Winecup may submit a response to Union Pacific's reply regarding the standard to be used for damages, within 14 days of the filing of this Order. Winecup Gamble, Inc v Gordon Ranch LP | 20-16411 - UniCourt ECF No. However, that does not mean that section 2 would not be useful in proving duty and breach under the "reasonable man" standard: Union Pacific may present evidence that Winecup failed to act as a reasonable dam owner by failing to perform work necessary to safeguard life and property, as required by this statute. The optional reply brief is due 21 days from the date of service of the answering brief. 157-2 at 10-15, 26, 30, 52. 135. Id. 2018) (quoting 7 James Wm. Winecup Gamble, Inc. v. Gordon Ranch LP | D. Nevada | 03-16-2022 | www At nearly a million acres, the Winecup Gamble Ranch, a mountainous Nevada spread hard up against the Utah border, puts Rhode Island to shame. To submit pertinent confidential information directly to the Circuit Mediators, please use the following # link . Gordon Ranch filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings; Winecup Gamble filed its motion for summary judgment. 3:21-CV-00226 | 2021-05-14, U.S. District Courts | Contract | [12029509] (JBS) [Entered: 03/09/2021 01:23 PM], U.S. District Courts | Property | Lindon disputes that he erred as to either point. 3:17-CV-00477 | 2017-08-10, U.S. District Courts | Other | The parties are encouraged and permitted to file a stipulation requesting pre-admittance of any uncontested exhibits. See Tennison v. Circus Circus Enterprises, Inc., 244 F.3d 684, 690 (9th Cir. See order for instructions and details. 141-2 6. R. CIV. ECF No. Union Pacific argues that 49 C.F.R. He has taken continuing education courses in hydro-meteorology, and has "operated the National Weather Service Station for Park City, Utah for the past 26 years, measuring and reporting temperatures, snowfall, snowpack and precipitation daily." While Union Pacific argues that these witnesses may not be qualified to offer opinion testimony, the Court reserves ruling on specific testimony for trial. ECF No. 3:12-cv-00344-RCJ-WGC, 2015 WL 260873, at *4 (D. Nev. Jan. 21, 2015) (emphasis in original). Date of service: 07/28/2020. 193) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part in accordance with this Order. Date of service: 07/29/2020. (Id.). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Union Pacific's eighteenth motion in limine to bar Winecup from offering evidence or argument about preserving the Dake dam for pike (ECF No. The existing briefing schedule remains in effect. Id. ECF No. 2:21-CV-00183 | 2021-03-26, U.S. District Courts | Contract | The ranch, in 2016, was for sale again. v. Reyes, Case No. Union Pacific may add these facts to the statement of contested issues of fact and Winecup will likewise be permitted to list the facts contested. in conjunction with its third motion in limine, Union Pacific motions this Court to pre-admit a number of exhibits (approximately 167) that would go in the requested juror binders. P. 32(a)(3) ("An adverse party may use for any purpose the deposition of a party or anyone who, when deposed, was the party's officer, director, managing agent, or designee under Rule 30(b)(6) or 31(a)(4)."). And there can be no dispute that Godwin's opinion is relevant and advances a material aspect of Winecup's case: Godwin's opinion goes directly to whether Union Pacific was contributorily negligent for the damaged tracks. And such communications took place shortly after the flood on February 21, 2017. Cancellation and Refund Policy, Privacy Policy, and (ECF No. Id. The schedule is set as follows: Appellant Winecup Gamble, Inc. First, Winecup argues that a plain reading of the text of NAC 535.240 shows that the applicability of the statute is limited to approval for new construction, reconstruction, or alterations, but it does not apply to dams in existence before the statute went into effect that have not been modified or altered. ECF No. ), After remand, the parties reinitiated discovery. 1) is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Judgment was entered accordingly. ECF No. Pyramid Techs., Inc. v. Hartford Cas. Winecup Gamble Ranch | Montello NV - Facebook Previously, Joe was a Student at King Ranch and also held pos itions at Roaring Springs Ranch Club. The State Engineer will assign all dams a hazard classification. Union Pacific has presented no evidence or rule to support the Court's exclusion of any and all evidence or testimony on the issue. 125) is granted in part and denied in part. Confidential submissions may include any information relevant to mediation of the case and settlement potential, including, but not limited to, settlement history, ongoing or potential settlement discussions, non-litigated party related issues, other pending actions, and timing considerations that may impact mediation efforts.[11771335]. 127). ECF No. Amended briefing schedule: Appellant Winecup Gamble, Inc. opening brief due 06/21/2021. Id. 141 at 20-21. Godwin opines that had Union Pacific rebuilt the earthen embankments and culverts, the cost of the track repair would have been substantially less than "upgrading" to steel bridgesonly $4.28 million as opposed to the $18.5 million claimed by Union Pacific. Date of service: 03/16/2021. The parties are encouraged to agree upon pre-admittance of any uncontested exhibits. 89. 175), are DENIED without prejudice. 129. ECF No. 133) is denied without prejudice. Union Pacific cites several sections of the NRS and NAC that it argues plainly apply to the Winecup dams, and letters from the State Engineer which show that Winecup was aware that certain sections of these statutes and regulations applied to the dams. In Zubulake, the court held that it was insufficient for a party to send a litigation hold letter to an IT department without ensuring that "all relevant information (or at least sources of relevant information) is discovered," "that relevant information is retained on a continuing basis," and "that relevant nonprivileged material is produced to the opposing party." . 403. [12050510] (BLS) [Entered: 03/23/2021 10:57 AM], Docket(#4) MEDIATION CONFERENCE SCHEDULED - DIAL-IN Assessment Conference, 03/31/2021, 12:00 p.m. PACIFIC Time. R. EVID. Moore-Brown v. City of North Las Vegas Police Dep't, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2)(A), Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2)(C), Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(4)(D), Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 705 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. Appellee Gordon Ranch LP answering brief due 06/07/2021. Union Pacific alleges that as a result of the dam's failure, water flowed downstream, in part, to the Dake Reservoir dam, and that the Dake then eroded and breached, causing flooding and ultimately washing out a significant portion of Union Pacific's railroad tracks. Paul Fireman was Winecup's sole shareholder and was initially a named party in the suit. Mediation Questionnaire due on 03/16/2021. In its first motion, Union Pacific argues that Lindon is not qualified to opine on meteorology because he does not hold a degree or certification in the field and his opinion should be excluded because he did not reliably apply accepted methodology to sufficient facts. If the parties determine that a jury trial is necessary, the Court would likely not be able to set it before the middle of 2021 due to the backlog of criminal jury trials. See NAC 535.055 ("Inflow design flood" means "a hypothetical flood of a given magnitude that is used to determine the design of a dam and its related hydraulic features. 175), are denied without prejudice. UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY, a Delaware corporation, Plaintiff, v. WINECUP RANCH, LLC, an Idaho Limited Liability Company; and WINECUP GAMBLE, INC., a Nevada corporation; and PAUL FIREMAN, an individual, Defendants. Newberry v. Cty. See Ambrosini v. Labarraque, 101 F.3d 129, 141 (D.C. Cir. See Daubert, 509 U.S at 596 ("Vigorous cross-examination, presentation of contrary evidence, and careful instruction on the burden of proof are the traditional and appropriate means of attacking shaky but admissible evidence."). 122) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part in accordance with this Order. Fla. 2018) ("[T]he issue of whether there was a force majeure or Act of God that caused the incident is an issue of fact, which cannot be decided on a motion to strike."). 111-7 31-33. 1989)). While supplementation almost a year a half after the deposition is untimely, the Court finds that Union Pacific has had more than enough time to consider this opinion and consult with its own expert on the subject such that it has not not been prejudiced by this supplemental disclosure. 120. . 34 Ex. /// ///. Defendant rejected the property and demanded a return of its earnest money arguing (1) that the amendment did not change the original contract provision that placed the risk of loss on Plaintiff's shoulders and (2) that Plaintiff's interpretation of the contract provision is not a liquidated damages clause but an unenforceable penalty clause as five million dollars was not an accurate prediction of Plaintiff's damages. Winecup also argues that Razavian's opinion on the subject should be excluded under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 because he does not rely on sufficient facts or data and does not use or apply reliable principles and methods to reach his opinion. At the time of this writing, the undersigned has presided over one criminal in-person jury trial since the COVID-19 lockdown orders went into effect in early March 2020, which included hearing from both witnesses in-person and via ZOOM video conferencing. Jan. 31, 2013). 405, 406 (W.D. 3:19-CV-00700 | 2019-11-20. 129) is DENIED without prejudice. Id. (citing Beaver Valley Power Co. v. Nat'l Eng'g & Contracting Co., 883 F.2d 1210, 1221 (3d. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Complaint (ECF No. It is uncontested that 23 Mile dam is classified as a low hazard dam, and Dake dam as a significant hazard dam. Winecup Gamble Ranch Atmospherics - YouTube Make your practice more effective and efficient with Casetexts legal research suite. 168 at 2. ECF No. However, each regulation was enacted under the authority of NRS 532.120, which confers upon the State Engineer the power to make such rules and regulations as may be necessary for the proper and orderly execution of its powers. The Court agrees with Winecup. Cal. 125. Winecup's third motion in limine to exclude argument related to Union Pacific's claim for negligence per se (ECF No. The Winecup and Gamble Ranch was put back together after the split in 1957, according to ranch history. Union Pacific also requests that the Court permit and provide a means for jurors to take notes. Accordingly, Union Pacific's motion (ECF No. Because we find that the parties' agreement is ambiguous and because the district court does not appear to have considered this issue previously, we do not address Gordon Ranch's argument that the earnest money cannot be awarded to Winecup, because such an award would necessarily render the earnest money provisions of the parties' agreement an unenforceable penalty clause. On May 13, 2020, two days before Winecup filed this opposition, it served Union Pacific with a supplemental expert disclosure that provided that Winecup intended to call Luke Opperman, and April Holt and Edward Quaglieri (additional individuals that inspected Winecup's dams), as non-retained experts. Given this pandemic, the Court will allow witnesses to appear by ZOOM video conferencing. At that time, the Court would expect participating attorneys to appear in-person, but it would again leave it to each party's counsel to determine which of its witnesses would appear by video or in-person. 640 were here. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Union Pacific's eighth motion in limine to bar evidence or argument that a non-party is comparatively negligent (ECF No. Union Pacific certified that it had met and conferred with Winecup prior to filing this motion in limine, as required by Local Rule LR II 16-3(a); however, Winecup does not oppose this request. Furthermore, Winecup argues that "to the extent Union Pacific's testifying experts relied on information from a 'consulting' expert, that information would also be admissible," pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 705. Id. 123) is DENIED. 157-31; 157-32. 123) is denied. 2004); see Mizzoni v. Allison, 2018 WL 3203623 at*5 (D. Nev. 2018) (citing to Zubulake). ; ECF No. The Court finds that this experience makes him qualified to offer opinions on rerouting, costs and repair, design, and construction of railroads, bridges, and culverts. ECF No. iv. Winecup's sixth motion in limine to exclude evidence and argument related to the financial condition of Winecup, Paul Fireman, and the sale of Winecup Gamble Ranch in 2019 (ECF No. Contact. 122) is granted in part and denied in part. ECF No. Atkinson v. MGM Grand Hotel, Inc., 98 P.3d 678, 680 (Nev. 2004). Quebec Edible Arrangements franchisees sue company over claims of lack Union Pacific argues that Lindon is not a qualified expert in meteorology because he does not hold a degree or certificate in the field. The Court finds that multiple exhibit binders each with a few hundred exhibits is impractical and unnecessary given the electronics available in the courtroom. 160. i. Godwin's a qualified expert in railroad rerouting, costs, and railroad construction and design. This is the subject of Winecup's first motion in limine; therefore, Union Pacific's arguments will be addressed below. In that case, participating attorneys would appear in-person, and the Court would leave it to each party's counsel to determine which of its witnesses would appear by video or in-person. The firm also values strong cooperating relationships with reputable land brokers in the profession. Mediation Questionnaire due on 03/16/2021. 2001); United States v. Layton, 767 F.2d 549, 556 (9th Cir. Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief. [12100962] [21-15415] (Jordan, David) [Entered: 05/04/2021 09:06 AM], Docket(#6) Filed order MEDIATION (SMC): This case is RELEASED from the Mediation Program. Winecup's fourth motion in limine requests the Court exclude Union Pacific's claim of punitive damages. The parties stipulated to extend rebuttal expert disclosures until November 19, 2018, at which time, Winecup disclosed two rebuttal witnesses. Winecup's late Supplemental Third Disclosure regarding Lindon's rebuttal opinion on the washout at mile post 670.03, while untimely, is harmless, and Lindon's opinions are admissible. ECF No. Work Experience Gamble Ranch Manager Winecup Gamble Ranch 2015-2023 Board Memberships & Affiliations Board Member Western Landowners Alliance 2019-2021 Advisory Board Member Seventh Generation Institute 2019-2021 View James Rogers's full profile ECF No. ECF Nos. As part of the agreement, Defendant deposited a million dollars of earnest money in escrow. The Ranch owns extraordinary water rights for 2,500 acres of productive irrigated crop land and 8,750 acres of strong irrigated and sub-irrigated pasture plus . 3/13/2023 7:21 PM. While ultimately whether to award punitive damages is a question for the jury, the district court must first make a "threshold determination that a defendant's conduct is subject to this form of civil punishment." He has "significant experience with hydrometerorology, surface water hydrology, modeling, and dam safety hydrology." (citation omitted). Union Pacific argues that Winecup is barred from asserting an "Act of God" defense. 1986) (citing Georgia-Pacific Corp. v. U.S., 640 F.2d 328, 334 (Ct. Cl. 12. And, neither Mr. Fireman nor Mr. Worden are able of producing these text messages. Get free access to the complete judgment in Winecup Gamble, Inc. v. Ranch on CaseMine. After the sale fell through, both parties filed suit, arguing that they were entitled to Gordon Ranch's earnest money deposit pursuant to the terms of the parties' purchase and sale agreement, as amended by the parties in December 2016. 141) is DENIED. Campbell Industries v. M/V Gemini, 619 F.2d 24, 27 (9th Cir. 163. 191. at 44:19-45:1), inappropriate backup settings (Id. 34 Ex. The parties agree that Nevada law governs the interpretation of their contract. Union Pacific's eighth motion in limine to bar evidence or argument that a non-party is comparatively negligent (ECF No. (See, e.g., ECF No. The Investment Issue: Winecup Gamble Ranch - The Land Report Under Federal Rule of Evidence 702, a witness may be qualified as an expert based on his or her knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education. FED. We express no view regarding what attorneys' fees (if any) are reasonable in these circumstances, and leave that determination to the sound discretion of the district court. While questions regarding estimations of the percentage overflow that came from 23 Mile dam verses from the floodwater in the Loray Wash due to the storm, and whether the Loray Wash had overtopped its banks without the addition of floodwater from 23 Mile dam go to the issue of causation, those are ultimately for the jury to decide and are different questions from whether Razavian offered an opinion that floodwater from 23 Mile dam caused the washout. ///. 112. The Court has fully reviewed the record and considered the parties' oral argument; for the reasons below, the Court grants in part and denies in part these motions. 34 Ex. 154. 1980) (internal citations omitted). 108) to add information learned in the depositions of Paul Fireman and Clay Worden in Winecup Gamble, Inc. v. Gordon Ranch, LP, 3:17-cv-00163, related to Winecup's financial situation. He claimed that Plaintiff orally instructed him to preserve his ESI, (Id. Because Winecup's arguments go to the weight of Razavian's opinion on the subject, not admissibility of his opinions, the Court denies Winecup's first motion in limine (ECF No. 2014) ("Even if data are imperfect, and more (or different) data might have resulted in a 'better' or more 'accurate' estimate in the absolute sense, it is not the district court's role under Daubert to evaluate the correctness of facts underlying an expert's testimony. However, Winecup argues that they should be permitted to ask questions about any expert or employee hired by the plaintiff that was not "in anticipation of litigation or to prepare for trial." R. Civ. If you do not agree with these terms, then do not use our website and/or services. 134) is denied without prejudice. 34 Ex. Id. The Ninth Circuit has made clear that district courts "should generally allow amendments of pretrial orders provided three criteria are met: (1) no substantial injury will be occasioned to the opposing party, (2) refusal to allow the amendment might result in injustice to the movant, and (3) the inconvenience to the court is slight." Winecup Gamble Ranch. 2015) (per curiam). Accordingly, the Union Pacific's fourth motion in limine to pre-admit exhibits for use in juror binders (ECF No. ECF No. Any further errors asserted by Union Pacific regarding Lindon's expert testimony are best left to cross-examination and presentation of contrary evidence as each goes to the weight of his testimony, not admissibility. 14. 49 U.S.C. Confidential submissions may include any information relevant to mediation of the case and settlement potential, including, but not limited to, settlement history, ongoing or potential settlement discussions, non-litigated party related issues, other pending actions, and timing considerations that may impact mediation efforts.[12043697]. ECF No. 4. Third, some of the lost ESI is not attainable through additional discovery. ), In February 2017, after executing the amendment and before the closing date, substantial flooding damaged the property. P. 26(a)(2)(C). 3:20-CV-00293 | 2020-05-18.
Accidentally Killed A Cat While Driving Islam, Male Reader X Female Deathclaw Lemon, Tech Conference Orlando 2022, Articles W