winecup gamble ranch lawsuit

(ECF No. Before deciding on how damages are to be calculated, the Court will permit Winecup the opportunity to respond to Union Pacific's reply; briefing is not to exceed 15 pages of argument, excluding tables of contents and authorities and administrative notices. Winecup argues that Union Pacific should only be permitted to recover the cost of replacing the culverts and embankments rather than the bridge "upgrade," and that it does not intend to argue whether culverts or bridges should have been built. Union Pacific requests the Court bar Winecup from admitting a paragraph of an email from a Union Pacific employee discussing traffic incidents with a Nevada Department of Transportation employee. 20106(a)(2). While it argues that Razavian's use of a topographical quadrangle map does not provide enough detail to map the flooding in the area (ECF No. Union Pacific requests that Winecup be barred from offering evidence or argument that a non-party is comparatively negligent, arguing that, under Nevada law, such evidence is irrelevant. 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. 108.) ECF No. Briefing is not to exceed 15 pages of argument , excluding tables of contents and authorities and administrative notices. The lawsuit would cover athletes who were training and competing between 2010 and 2020, and seeks compensation of $250,000 for punitive damages, as well as moral damages in the amount of $12,000 . 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. 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. 152) is granted in part and denied in part. Therefore, Union Pacific's fifth and sixth motions in limine are denied. R.R. 15. 2011). 130) is denied without prejudice. This statute, titled Construction, reconstruction or alteration of dam: Permit to appropriate water required; notice; approval of plans and specifications; inspection; exemptions; penalty, provides: Union Pacific further argues that Winecup "abandoned" the Dake dam which constitutes an "alteration" within the meaning of NRS 535.010 and required Winecup to submit a plan for approval, which it failed to do. 6. 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. 120-1 at 5. During the initial proceeding, the jury will decide whether Winecup acted with oppression, fraud, or malice. 1993) (finding that because the parties retained their own qualified experts, the appointment of a neutral expert was "not likely to enlighten or enhance the ability of the Court to determine the pending issue."). Union Pacific rebuilt these areas with steel bridges instead of rebuilding the embankments and culverts. Id. The parties have submitted a total of 27 motions in limine. Union Pacific pleads in its second amended complaint that the following Nevada Administrative Codes impose a standard of conduct obligating Winecup to act in accordance: NAC 535.370, 535.040, 535.240, 535.320. Story continues below advertisement. Mediation Questionnaire. Transcript due 09/21/2020. 112) are denied. 132) is granted. See Land Baron Ivs., Inc. v. Bonnie Springs Family LP, 356 P.3d 511, 522 (Nev. 2015) (affirming an award of punitive damages for a nuisance counterclaim); Parkinson v. Winniman, 344 P.2d 677, 678 (Nev. 1959) (holding that an award of exemplary damages was proper upon proof of intentional trespass). 157-2 at 66; 157-28. 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. Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief. Judgment on the pleadings should not have been granted, because the ambiguity described above and the dispute over the parties' intent when they amended their agreement presents a disputed issue of material fact. (ECF No. Id. Union Pacific's seventh motion in limine to bar Winecup's contributory negligence defense and Derek Godwin's contributory negligence opinion (ECF No. ECF No. 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. The Court finds that the agents did intentionally spoliate ESI vital to the issues of this case, which resulted in prejudice that can only be cured through dispositive rulings in Defendant's favor. 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]. Amended briefing schedule: Appellant Winecup Gamble, Inc. opening brief due 06/21/2021. Newberry v. Cty. 14. ECF No. 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. winecup gamble ranch. Accordingly, Union Pacific's nineteenth motion in limine is granted. 111-7 35-42. The most relevant evidence for these determinations would again be Mr. Worden's lost ESI. NRS 42.001(1)-(4). The briefing schedule previously set by the court remains in effect. WINECUP GAMBLE, INC., a Nevada corporation, Plaintiff, v. GORDON RANCH, LP, a Texas limited partnership, Defendant Case No. With this expeditious timeframe, Defendant has shown that the ESI was deleted after the duty arose to preserve the ESI. 12. vigorous cross-examination and presentation of contrary evidence, not exclusion, are the appropriate means of attacking whether Lindon used the "best" or "most accurate" data points, and therefore created an accurate model of the flood event. ECF No. 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." Union Pacific's arguments to exclude Godwin's opinion go not to admissibility, but to the weight and are best left to cross-examination during trial; the exclusion is denied. This model is "industry standard used by the Army Corps of Engineers . 3:17-CV-00477 | 2017-08-10, U.S. District Courts | Property | This District's courtrooms are fully equipped with an electronic exhibit display system that allows each juror to view exhibits on their own personal screen. 126. 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)."). Transcript ordered by 08/21/2020. ), After remand, the parties reinitiated discovery. 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 the amount of damages Union Pacific should be permitted to recover if the jury reaches the issue. 122 at 2. 141) is denied. 163. 195. Before the court are a total of 27 motions in limine; 21 motions filed by Union Pacific Railroad Company ("Union Pacific") (ECF Nos. Previously, Joe was a Student at King Ranch and also held pos itions at Roaring Springs Ranch Club. The district court granted the motion for judgment on the pleadings, thus denying the motion for summary judgment without considering the merits of that motion; it also found that neither party was entitled to an award of attorneys' fees. Include Ninth Circuit case number in subject line. 2:19-CV-00414 | 2019-06-17, U.S. District Courts | Contract | 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. Second, as to the infiltration data, disagreements over data imputes are again best left to cross-examination and presentation of contrary evidence. In the 2012 inspection report, it is noted that the spillway should be cleared of all debris and vegetation, however, in 2016, the inspection report provides that the spillway has lost its design capacity due to vegetation growing and earthen materials sluffing from the hillside. The Judges overseeing this case are Robert C. Jones and Valerie P. Cooke. Id. ECF No. Today, the trust and relationships built through ROGER have helped create a working group that is focused on one of the pilot ranches participating in the BLM's Outcome-Based Grazing Authorizations (OBGA) program taking place on the Winecup-Gamble Ranch outside of Wells, Nevada. 155-4 at 5; ECF No. UniCourt uses cookies to improve your online experience, for more information please see our Privacy Policy. The Court finds that the legal issues and circumstances presented in this case are not so complex or exceptional that a neutral expert is needed to assist the trier of fact and, therefore, denies Union Pacific's motion to do so. ECF No. 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. at 43:14-25), upgrading to a new computer during this time (Id. 89. winecup gamble ranch llc. 3:17-CV-00163-RCJ-WGC (D. Nev. Jul. . The amended agreement is certainly not susceptible only to the interpretation adopted by the district court, regarding whether the amendment sought to change or modify the detailed risk-of-loss scheme detailed in the terms of the parties' original agreement. 2. Id. Union Pacific's first motion in limine to exclude meteorological opinions of Matthew Lindon and to appoint a neutral expert (ECF No. 3/13/2023 7:21 PM. However, "if a regulation is a first-time interpretive regulation, application to preexisting issues may be permissible." However, the Court is hopeful that the parties can agree upon the admissibility of exhibits as much as reasonably practicable. ECF No. SEND MQ: Yes. For 25 years, Lindon worked at the Utah Department of Natural Resources, Division of Water Rights, Dam Safety Section, in part, creating "hydrological models to simulate hypothetical storms and floods and re-create actual events, such as rain on snowpack events, that resulted in flooding and dam failures." Union Pacific's fourteenth motion in limine to bar evidence or argument about consulting experts (ECF No. Therefore, the Court finds that only the drastic case dispositive sanctions are appropriate in this case. 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. Mediation Questionnaire. The clause would be an enforceable liquidated damages provision if the amount was a good faith effort to estimate the actual damages, but an unenforceable penalty if the amount is disproportionate to the actual damages sustained. ECF No. Id. Joe Glascock is a General Manager at Winecup Gamble Ranch based in Montello, Nevada. Accordingly, the Court denies Union Pacific's requested exclusion. We are so incredibly thankful that Patrick Bates and David Packer of Bates Land Consortium, Inc chose us to produce this mammoth of a marketing video. Winecup's fifth motion in limine to exclude evidence and argument related to an Emergency Action Plan for the Dake dam (ECF No. "These factors are 'meant to be helpful, not definitive, and the trial court has discretion to decide how to test an expert's reliability as well as whether the testimony is reliable, based on the particular circumstances of the particular case.'" (ECF No. 157-24, 157-28. Accordingly, Union Pacific's eighth motion in limine (ECF No. See Part III.A.1.iii. ECF No. It's as wide and wild and complicated a landscape as there is in today's West. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that 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. ), The Court ruled in favor of Defendant as a matter of law finding that the contract was unambiguous in its favor. facts known or opinions held by an expert who has been retained or specially employed by another party in anticipation of litigation or to prepare for trial and who is not expected to be called as a witness at trial." wine cup ranch llc. 1980) (internal citations omitted). 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. Womack v. GEO Grp., Inc., No. Description PROPERTY HAS A PROVEN SOURCE OF AT LEAST 60,000 ACRE FEET OF WATER AND ALL RIGHTS TO THAT WATER. While Plaintiff claims that it orally informed Mr. Worden to preserve ESI, this is woefully inadequate as discussed above, but evinces that Plaintiff and Mr. Worden knew they had a duty to preserve the ESI. As discussed in full below, the Court will permit Union Pacific to argue the issue of punitive damages. Id. The parties stipulated to extend rebuttal expert disclosures until November 19, 2018, at which time, Winecup disclosed two rebuttal witnesses. 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. Cancellation and Refund Policy, Privacy Policy, and 10. 1986) (citing Georgia-Pacific Corp. v. U.S., 640 F.2d 328, 334 (Ct. Cl. Union Pacific concedes that Lindon is a qualified expert in hydrology. Finally, one place to get all the court documents we need. This is a question of accuracy, not admissibility, and it is best left to the jury to consider the weight of this evidence. 149) is granted. ECF No. Godwin further testified that he had reviewed Union Pacific's rerouting costs and crew costs as provided, and the number of trains per day. Section 213.33 provides: "Each drainage or other water carrying facility under or immediately adjacent to the roadbed shall be maintained and kept free of obstruction, to accommodate expected water flow for the area concerned." Union Pacific further argues that evidence of Winecup's financial condition is "to allow the jury to fully evaluate the decades of neglect, to see it was not due to financial straits but was fully calculated and intentional with an eye to profits." Transcript ordered by 08/21/2020. 1. Plaintiff admitted that Mr. Worden was the principal negotiator in forming the deal resulting in some text messages between him and Mr. Fireman. 2015) (per curiam). It also appears that the denial was not based on an assessment of the materials the parties had produced in connection with that motion, which materials may also be considered by the district court on remand. 1990). 1989)). Winecup opposes. (ECF No. 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." 111) is DENIED. Aerial Imaging Productions At nearly 1 million acres, the Winecup Gamble Ranch in north eastern Nevada, is a crowning achievement for us. Further, whether Winecup presents sufficient evidence during trial to support giving the jury an Act of God instruction must be determined at trial. Specifically, Winecup argues that this administrative regulation only provides the design standard for new construction of dams, not a standard of care for existing dam owners, and even if it did set forth a standard of care, the regulation cannot be applied retroactively to Winecup's dams because both were constructed prior to March 15, 1951. While Winecup clearly could not have disclosed any of these experts at the initial October 2018 disclosure date (as none had yet to be deposed), Winecup could have disclosed that it intended to call Holt and Quaglieri in its November 2018 rebuttal disclosure, and could have disclosed Opperman well before May 13, 2020. The Court finds that multiple exhibit binders each with a few hundred exhibits is impractical and unnecessary given the electronics available in the courtroom. 125) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part, in accordance with this Order. And while "[i]n some cases, it may be cost-effective for counsel simply to provide jurors with individual binders containing indexed copies of selected exhibits central to the presentation at trial," electronic display systems that show everyone in the courtroom the exhibit simultaneously likewise "significantly assist jury involvement and comprehension and expediate trial." In its second motion in limine, Union Pacific argues that Lindon's opinions regarding the cause of the mile post 670.03 washout should be excluded because he "ignored considerable evidence" that Razavian relied upon for his own opinion. Id. See order for instructions and details. ECF No. 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. Winecup further argues that because Opperman is a neutral expert, deposed by both parties, and listed in Union Pacific's witness disclosures, Union Pacific will not be prejudiced by his testimony. Additionally, the Ninth Circuit did not rule on whether Plaintiff's interpretation of the contract constituted a penalty clause. 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. R. CIV. 2019). 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. The existing briefing schedule remains in effect. The Court directs readers to Part III.B.2-3 below for a larger discussion on this issue, as it is related but not entirely on point to Union Pacific's tenth motion in limine. D.C. No. 207 ) is extended . 3. FED. 160-4 at 6. The Winecup and Gamble Ranch was put back together after the split in 1957, according to ranch history. not exclude opinions merely because they are impeachable." The ranch, in 2016, was for sale again. To submit pertinent confidential information directly to the Circuit Mediators, please use the following # link . However, "[n]othing in NRS 41.141 prohibits a party defendant from attempting to establish that either no negligence occurred or that the entire responsibility for a plaintiff's injuries rests with nonparties[.]" The duty to preserve commenced at least by this date. However, Plaintiff appealed, and the Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded holding that the intent of the parties was not clear as to whether they meant for the amendment to trump the original agreement's risk of loss language. A reasonable jury could find punitive damages are warranted if it finds that Winecup acted with conscious disregard of the downstream property owners. 30, 2007). 134) is denied without prejudice. 157. To succeed on this motion, the moving party must prove the following three elements: Defendant also moves for sanctions under the Court's inherent authority. R. EVID. Under Federal Rule of Evidence 705, "[u]nless the court orders otherwise, an expert may state an opinionand give the reasons for itwithout first testifying to the underlying facts or data.

Solidworks Center Mark Extension Lines, Atlanta Youth Football, How Long Does Bad Taste Last After Root Canal, Michael Gelman Hamptons Home, Articles W