winecup gamble ranch lawsuit

Therefore, the Court finds that only the drastic case dispositive sanctions are appropriate in this case. 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.[11770017]. 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. 107 Ex. "The decision of whether to allow the jury to take notes is left entirely to the discretion of the trial court." Stephanie Hoit Lee & David N. Finley, Federal Motions in Limine 1:1 (2018). Appellee Gordon Ranch LP answering brief due 11/30/2020. Union Pacific's arguments against his qualifications go to the weight of his testimony, not admissibility, and are best left to vigorous cross-examination. ECF No. [12100962] [21-15415] (Jordan, David) [Entered: 05/04/2021 09:06 AM], (#3) The Mediation Questionnaire for this case was filed on 03/16/2021. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. The Court disagrees. 127. Winecup Gamble argues that Razavian did not offer an opinion on the cause of the washout at mile post 670.03 in his initial report, offering his opinion for the first time during his deposition. 125) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part, in accordance with this Order. at 3. Union Pacific's fifteenth motion in limine to bar one paragraph in email referencing contract truck driver incidents (ECF No. (ECF No. Additionally, in Mr. Fireman's deposition, he said that he spoke to Mr. Worden about the contract and amendment through personal meetings, telephone calls, text messages, and emails. The parties timely responded. Id. Accordingly, Union Pacific's first and second motions in limine are denied. 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." Thus, these regulations are not interpretive, but legislative and should not apply retroactively. 2001) (citation omitted). Generally, all relevant evidence is admissible. 111 & 112. ECF No. not exclude opinions merely because they are impeachable." The Court took numerous safety precautions in the courtroom to ensure that all participants, attorneys, witnesses, and the Court staff, were protected, which included installing plexiglass partitions and implementing sanitization protocols. 250,000 ACRES DEEDED LAND WITH GRAZING RIGHTS ON OVER 1,000,000 ACRES. The parties subsequently signed a three-page amendment to the agreement that changed the closing date and increased the earnest money to five million dollars. See ECF No. 175), are DENIED without prejudice. 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. Evidence is relevant if "it has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence." FED. 20103(a). FED. Plaintiff declined to repair the property. at a trial, unless the failure was substantially justified or is harmless." However, the Court is hopeful that the parties can agree upon the admissibility of exhibits as much as reasonably practicable. Appellant Winecup Gamble, Inc. opening brief due 10/30/2020. 4. 702. Mar. Winecup Gamble Ranch. See Ambrosini v. Labarraque, 101 F.3d 129, 141 (D.C. Cir. Union Pacific's combined fifth and sixth motion in limine pertains to Godwin's second and third opinions and argues that Godwin is not only unqualified to render opinions on these issues, but has insufficient factual knowledge and lacks any methodology to reach these opinions. winecup gamble ranch. Description PROPERTY HAS A PROVEN SOURCE OF AT LEAST 60,000 ACRE FEET OF WATER AND ALL RIGHTS TO THAT WATER. Casetext, Inc. and Casetext are not a law firm and do not provide legal advice. 2:19-CV-00414 | 2019-06-17, U.S. District Courts | Contract | ECF No. In October 2016, the parties entered into a detailed seventeen-page agreement, where Plaintiff was to sell a ranch property in Northern Nevada to Defendant. /// ///. The Court agrees with Winecup. ECF No. 535.300 sets forth the requirement for new construction of dams, not existing dams; and (2) because there is ample evidence that the storm that preceded 23 Mile dam's failure, exceeded a 100-year flood event. ECF No. Reading the parties' agreement as a whole, it is reasonably susceptible to more than one interpretation. 6. Union Pacific moves this Court to permit its witnesses that must travel by plane or more than three hours by car to testify via videoconference. Winecup's expert, Matthew Lindon, disagrees and opines that the washout was caused by water from the Loray Wash and that floodwater from the 23 Mile dam could not have caused that track washout because the timing evidence shows that water from 23 Mile dam could not have reached mile post 670.03 at the time it was washed out. The Court finds Lindon is a qualified expert in meteorology and hydrology, as it relates to his opinions in this specific case. However, "if a regulation is a first-time interpretive regulation, application to preexisting issues may be permissible." Winecup opposes this request, arguing that it would be prejudiced if it is not able to cross examine Union Pacific's witnesses in open court, and that such an extraordinary order that all of a party's witnesses appear by video is unprecedented. 160-4 at 6. While section 233.13 touches on drainage, it does not substantially subsume the subject matterthere is no specified standard for culvert size or what type of culvert should be used in this circumstance. Atkinson v. MGM Grand Hotel, Inc., 98 P.3d 678, 680 (Nev. 2004). However, the Advisory Committee Notes make clear that the 2015 amendment forecloses a court from imposing sanctions for spoliation of ESI under that basis. winecup gamble inc. winecup gamble ranch people. Accordingly, the Court grants Union Pacific's eighteenth motion in limine as it relates to the cited email and denies it without prejudice as it relates to the subject as a whole. Union Pacific's sixteenth motion in limine to bar two words in an email with profane reference (ECF No. ECF No. Accordingly, the Court finds that section 213.33 does not preempt Winecup's affirmative defense. In its second motion, though Union Pacific concedes that Lindon is qualified to opine on hydrology, it argues that his opinions should be excluded because his methodology and data were flawed. ), Presently, Defendant moves for sanctions against Plaintiff alleging that Mr. Worden and Mr. Fireman, acting as Plaintiff's agents, spoliated the ESI. Co. v. Winecup Ranch, LLC, Case No. See Tennison v. Circus Circus Enterprises, Inc., 244 F.3d 684, 690 (9th Cir. On 03/09/2021 Winecup Gamble, Inc filed a Property - Other Real Property lawsuit against Gordon Ranch LP.This case was filed in U.S. Courts Of Appeals, U.S. Court Of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. 2. R. Civ. Union Pacific attacks Lindon's meteorology testimony, arguing that Lindon's model used (1) an incorrect time period, and (2) the wrong weather station data. Counsel are requested to contact the Circuit Mediator should circumstances develop that warrant settlement discussions while the appeal is pending. Id. 111-7 35-42. ECF No. Questions about what facts are most relevant or reliable . IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Union Pacific's thirteenth motion in limine to bar evidence or argument related to an "Act of God" defense (ECF No. Nevertheless, Mr. Worden claims that he does not have the emails anymore as a result of a company policy to not preserve emails (Id. Finally, one place to get all the court documents we need. Transcript ordered by 08/21/2020. Winecup provides that it only intends to have these experts testify to that which is contained within their respective depositions and reports. 422 (S.D.N.Y. Union Pacific cites an email from Bill Nisbet to James Rogers, in which he states: It is unclear whether the parties are referring to the Federal or State agency. A at 43:24-25), he also admits that the emails could have been deleted later by receiving a new computer or by failing to change his backup setting (Id. Winecup argues that this regulation does not "substantially subsume the subject matter of" culvert size, and therefore, it cannot preempt the state common law standard. 80 at 2. 120. While Lindon may not be a meteorologist by degree, he is clearly qualified to conduct the meteorological calculations and consider those calculations in reaching his expert opinion regarding the dam failure and subsequent flooding. (Id.) Contact. Accordingly, the Union Pacific's fourth motion in limine to pre-admit exhibits for use in juror binders (ECF No. Since, the Courts finds intentionality the harsher sanctions of Fed. Nor has Union Pacific pointed to anything in the record to support that the State Engineer has considered legal action against Winecup under this statute for a violation due to abandonment of the Dake. R. CIV. 3:20-CV-00029 | 2020-01-15, U.S. District Courts | Contract | The Winecup Gamble is owned by Paul Fireman,. [12048869] (BLS) [Entered: 03/22/2021 11:05 AM], Docket(#3) The Mediation Questionnaire for this case was filed on 03/16/2021. 34 Ex. at 44:19-45:1), inappropriate backup settings (Id. C at 6.) ECF Nos. Gordon Ranch filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings; Winecup Gamble filed its motion for summary judgment. 4 (Letter between counsel noting a telephone conversation on February 21, 2017 between counsel discussing their legal positions).) 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 schedule is set as follows: Appellant Winecup Gamble, Inc. 164. Extremely limited rainfall, roughly 7 inches annually, makes . Both parties appeal. 4. (ECF No. This provision does not fix a standard legal duty; it is much too broad and leaves open to interpretation what work is necessary for dam owners to maintain and operate their dams safely. Union Pacific requests the Court appoint a neutral expert to help the Court "understand" the scientific opinions of the parties' experts. Research the case of Winecup Gamble, Inc. v. Gordon Ranch LP, from the D. Nevada, 03-17-2022. 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. ECF No. ROBERT C. JONES United States District Judge ORDER Defendant moves for sanctions against Plaintiff alleging that its agents spoliated valuable electronically stored information (ESI). ECF No. 165. To submit pertinent confidential information directly to the Circuit Mediators, please use the following # link . ECF No. During this period, Defendant claims to have discovered that Plaintiff's agent, Mr. Clay Worden, and its owner, Mr. Paul Fireman, deleted ESI pertinent to the factual issues of this case. To submit pertinent confidential information directly to the Circuit Mediators, please use the following # link . 2014) (quoting Primiano, 598 F.3d at 564). In the event of a dam failure, a significant hazard dam carries a "(1) reasonable probability of causing loss of life; or (2) high probability of causing extensive economic loss or disruption in a lifeline;" and a low hazard dam carries a "(1) Very low probability of causing a loss of human life; and (2) Reasonable probability of causing little, if any, economic loss or disruption in a lifeline." Godwin testified that the RS Means methodology is the "industry standard" for estimating construction costs. The Winecup and Gamble Ranch was put back together after the split in 1957, according to ranch history. ECF No. Get free access to the complete judgment in Winecup Gamble, Inc. v. Ranch on CaseMine. Accordingly, Union Pacific's sixteenth motion is denied without prejudice and the Court reserves ruling on whether the terminology is either irrelevant, unfairly prejudicial or overly technical such that an expert is needed to testify, based on the context in which it is presented at trial. See ECF No. A.) Before the court are a total of 27 motions in limine; 21 motions filed by Union Pacific Railroad Company ("Union Pacific") (ECF Nos. Further, evidence may be excluded when there is a significant danger that the jury might base its decision on emotion, or when non-party events would distract reasonable jurors from the real issues in a case. Next, Union Pacific argues that two of Godwin's opinion related to Winecup's contributory negligence defense should be excluded: (1) Godwin opines that based on his experience in railroad construction and design, that it is industry standard that railroads throughout the country use culverts large enough to handle flows associated with a 100-year storm; and (2) Godwin opines that the culverts in place before the flood were not large enough to withstand a 50-year storm. While this disclosure is technically untimely, it was harmless; therefore, the procedural failure does not provide a basis for exclusion under Rule 37. Id. 2019), reassignment is appropriate to preserve the appearance of justice, see In re 3 Benvin, 791 F.3d 1096, 1104 (9th Cir. The Court agrees with Winecup: any ruling that Winecup is precluded from arguing that a specific statute applies in this case must be made on a statute-by-statute/ regulation-by-regulation basis. ///. See Part III.A.1.iii. 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. The Court does not presently address the request for attorney's fees. However, Winecup may argue that it is not negligent or that a non-party is solely responsible, and Winecup may proffer admissible evidence in support thereof. ROBERT C. JONES United States District Judge. 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)."). Winecup only argues that Fireman's deposition should be excluded as irrelevant and fails to make any showing that it will be substantially injured if the testimony is permitted. 122 at 2. "); ECF No. 195. . Razavian's February 27, 2019 deposition (occurring approximately two years before trial) and Razavian's January 17, 2020 declaration (provided approximately one year before trial) provide his opinion regarding the mile post 670.03 washout in great detail. "The fact that the parties' experts have a divergence of opinion does not require the district court to appoint experts to aid in resolving such conflicts." The Court reiterates that the District Court has temporarily suspended all jury trials until further notice. . Appellee Gordon Ranch LP answering brief due 11/30/2020. The amended order should include both the agreed amendments and those permitted by this Order. 139. Federal Rule of Evidence 702 governs the admissibility of expert testimony, providing: To determine the reliability of the principles and methods used, the court looks to: (1) whether a theory or technique can be or has been tested; (2) whether it has been subjected to peer review and publication; (3) the known or potential rate of error; (4) whether there are standards controlling the technique's operation; and (5) whether the theory or technique has general acceptance within the relevant scientific community. 2004); see Mizzoni v. Allison, 2018 WL 3203623 at*5 (D. Nev. 2018) (citing to Zubulake). [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. 108 at 11. Winecup opposes the motion arguing that Opperman is not a retained expert, and therefore, it did not violate Rule 26 by not submitting a written expert report to Union Pacific. Union Pacific's eighteenth motion in limine to bar Winecup from offering evidence or argument about preserving the Dake dam for pike (ECF No. Accordingly, Union Pacific's motion (ECF No. 131. The Court assumes that the parties will follow these rules; therefore, it denies Union Pacific's fourteenth motion in limine without prejudice (ECF No. 3:21-CV-00226 | 2021-05-14, U.S. District Courts | Contract | WINECUP GAMBLE, INC., a Nevada corporation, Plaintiff, v. GORDON RANCH, LP, a Texas limited partnership, Defendant Case No. Paul Fireman was Winecup's sole shareholder and was initially a named party in the suit. 166. The Court finds that this trial presents no extenuating circumstance or reason to deviate from this process, especially given that the parties are not in agreement as to any of the proposed instructions. The Honorable Fernando M. Olguin, United States District Judge for the Central District of California, sitting by designation. Bard, Inc., Case No. ECF No. Union Pacific argues that due to the complexity of the Oroville Dam failure, evidence and argument on the topic would result in a "mini trial," and as the weather and flooding occurred outside the relevant watershed, the evidence is irrelevant. 154. The high desert of northeastern Nevada poses unique environmental challenges for producers growing forages. 141. 1398, 1400 (N.D. Ill. 1993) (noting that a court may wait to resolve the evidentiary issues at trial, where the evidence can be viewed in its "proper context"). 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 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2)(A) provides: "a party must disclose to the other parties the identity of any witness it may use at trial to present evidence under Federal Rules of Evidence 702, 703, or 705." ECF No. He declares that he has been "personally involved with rerouting for a Class 1 railroad approximately twelve times over the past six years." Union Pacific's thirteenth motion in limine to bar evidence or argument related to an "Act of God" defense (ECF No.

Piscataquis County Police Log, South Boston Man Found Dead, Articles W