winecup gamble ranch lawsuitbreaking news shooting in greenville, nc

ECF No. 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. [12043650] [21-15415] (Peterson, William) [Entered: 03/16/2021 05:14 PM], Docket(#1) DOCKETED CAUSE AND ENTERED APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL. "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." 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." Mediation Questionnaire due on 07/29/2020. See ECF No. 122) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part in accordance with this Order. Before the court are a total of 27 motions in limine; 21 motions filed by Union Pacific Railroad Company ("Union Pacific") (ECF Nos. Because Union Pacific cannot rely on these administrative regulations to support negligence per se, the Court grants Winecup's motion as it relates to these and any other administrative regulation Union Pacific would consider proffering in support. Margrave v. Dermody Prop., 878 P.2d 291, 293 (Nev. 1994) (per curiam); see LK Comstock & Co. v. United Eng. at 46:19-22), or some combination of these factors. 150. If you do not agree with these terms, then do not use our website and/or services. Additionally, the Court finds that the potential risk for jurors to view exhibits out of order, to lose focus during testimony, or be unable to take notes, weighs against providing such binders. 120. 135. Jun. C.) However, Mr. Worden did not produce any ESI from his devices and admits that the ESI was lost from his electronic devices. 1980) (internal citations omitted). Union Pacific argues that Lindon is not a qualified expert in meteorology because he does not hold a degree or certificate in the field. See order for instructions and details. 193. At this junction, Union Pacific should have witnesses that can testify to the authenticity and admissibility of the at-issue exhibits; reopening discovery so that Union Pacific can serve Rule 36 requests is therefore, unnecessary. 3:17-cv-00163-RCJ-VPC MEMORANDUM Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of NevadaRobert Clive Jones, District Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted December 17, 2018 San Francisco, California Before: CALLAHAN and N.R. The parties have submitted a total of 27 motions in limine. The Wine Cup headquarters are located on a long, lonely stretch of state highway just north of Wells, Nev., and the Gamble is farther southeast, near the one-bar town of Montello. While these regulations do not provide the standard of care, evidence and argument related to NAC 532.240 may be presented to support a standard of care under the reasonable person standard. 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. ECF No. 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. The parties stipulated to extend rebuttal expert disclosures until November 19, 2018, at which time, Winecup disclosed two rebuttal witnesses. 37, 89. 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. Alamo Airways, Inc. v. Benum, 374 P.2d 684, 686 (Nev. 1962). As discussed in full below, the Court will permit Union Pacific to argue the issue of punitive damages. R.R. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 32(a)(8), the deposition from an earlier action "may be used in a later action involving the same subject matter between the same parties." In Nevada, "[r]etroactivity is not favored," and courts generally interpret regulations to "only operate prospectively unless an intent to apply them retroactively is clearly manifested." 2:21-CV-00183 | 2021-03-26, U.S. District Courts | Contract | The amended order should include both the agreed amendments and those permitted by this Order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Union Pacific's twelfth motion in limine to Bar Evidence or Argument about (A) the Oroville Dam Spillway Failure, or (B) Weather or (C) Flood Conditions in Watersheds West of the Relevant One (ECF No. This communication will be kept confidential, if requested, and should not be filed with the court. Humetrix, Inc. v. Gemplus S.C.A., 268 F.3d 910, 919 (9th Cir. 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. prescribes a regulation or issues an order covering the subject matter of the State requirement." Union Pacific attacks Lindon's hydrology testimony, arguing that (1) Lindon misapplied the "gage stream technique" and (2) used the wrong infiltration data. The most relevant evidence for these determinations would again be Mr. Worden's lost ESI. ECF No. ECF No. (ECF No. Union Pacific does not allege a claim for gross negligence, but simply makes a claim for negligence. Union Pacific requests the Court appoint a neutral expert to help the Court "understand" the scientific opinions of the parties' experts. 139 at 8. ECF No. (ECF No. Winecup opposes the motion arguing that the relevance and prejudicial impact of the evidence is best determined at trial, and that Union Pacific provides no argument why lay opinion that certain people were "sandbagging" requires an expert. Section 213.33 "only regulates the maintenance of existing drainage;" the regulations "are otherwise silent on when additional drainage is required, what kind of drainage is appropriate, and how drainage should be installed." 3:17-CV-00157 | 2017-03-13, U.S. District Courts | Labor | The district court's attorneys' fees decision is moot and is vacated as well. Moreover. Paul Fireman's Nevada Ranch Lists for $50 Million - WSJ winecup gamble ranch. Lastly, Union Pacific motions the Court to amend the pretrial order (ECF No. 108.) 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. FED. 2011). 2018) (holding that the 2015 amendment to Rule 37(e) "foreclose[d] reliance on inherent authority" for sanctioning spoliation of ESI) (quoting Fed. The firm also values strong cooperating relationships with reputable land brokers in the profession. Union Pacific motions the Court to exclude Winecup's expert, Matthew Lindon, from providing opinions on meteorological and hydrological issues. [12077160] (AF) [Entered: 04/16/2021 11:36 AM], Docket(#5) MEDIATION CONFERENCE RESCHEDULED - DIAL-IN Assessment Conference, 04/14/2021, 9:30 a.m. Pacific Time (originally scheduled on 03/31/2021). 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 FED. Winecup opposes the motion arguing that whether the storm that caused the dam's failure was a historic storm event is a question for the jury and therefore, Winecup should be permitted to offer evidence of the historic storm. [11785954] (BLS) [Entered: 08/12/2020 08:52 AM], Docket(#6) The Mediation Questionnaire for this case was filed on 07/29/2020. 111 at 16-17. Documentary footage of life and work on the Gamble division of the Winecup Gamble Ranch, Montello, Nevada. SEND MQ: Yes. 160-4 at 6. Owners Russell Wilkins and Martin Wunderlich had divided the ranch in 1945. 141-2 18), that is an argument best left for cross examination and goes toward the weight not the admissibility of Razavian's opinion. 402. UniCourt uses cookies to improve your online experience, for more information please see our Privacy Policy. ECF No. Winecup's first motion in limine to exclude Union Pacific's expert Daryoush Razavian's testimony related to mile post 670.03 (ECF No. 2001); United States v. Layton, 767 F.2d 549, 556 (9th Cir. Briefing is not to exceed 15 pages of argument , excluding tables of contents and authorities and administrative notices. [12029509] (JBS) [Entered: 03/09/2021 01:23 PM]. Gallo v. Union Pacific R.R. Godwin's opinion on rerouting is admissible. (ECF No. Read More . i. 2:19-CV-00414 | 2019-06-17, U.S. District Courts | Contract | Second, Winecup addresses Nevada Revised Statute 535.030, which it claims also cannot provide the basis for Union Pacific's negligence per se claim. Union Pacific argues that the Dake dam's inoperable outlet and failed embankment section near the spillway intensified the flood waters and contributed to the damage to Union Pacific's tracks, and had an emergency action plan been in place, these inadequacies would have been addressed. 2:19-CV-00414 | 2019-06-17, U.S. District Courts | Contract | See Emblaze Ltd. v. Apple Inc., 52 F. Supp. Id. 6. However, they do not currently have these texts messages, and Mr. Fireman admitted that no one had searched his phone to attempt to preserve the text messages. ECF No. Defendant shall receive the return of its five million dollar earnest money with interest. ECF No. ECF No. "); ECF No. Date of service: 03/16/2021. 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. Again, there can be no dispute that Godwin's opinion is relevant and advances a material aspect of Winecup's case and that the RS Means methodology for determining costs is standard in the industry. While, Mr. Worden claimed that, "I could have deleted those emails right after the conversation," (ECF No. The Winecup-Gamble Ranch contains 247,000 acres of deeded land and permitted grazing access to roughly 750,000 additional acres of public and private land. 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. 1989) (reviewing the district court's interpretation of a contract de novo). Accordingly, Union Pacific's third motion in limine (ECF No. [11770779] [20-16411] (Lundvall, Pat) [Entered: 07/29/2020 01:50 PM], Docket(#4) The Mediation Questionnaire for this case was filed on 07/28/2020. While the Court expects in-person jury trials to resume in early 2021, the parties should consider the constraints of holding a civil jury trial during the COVID-19 pandemic as they proceed with the litigation of this matter and in determining whether a bench trial via ZOOM video conferencing is a feasible option. Appellee Gordon Ranch LP answering brief due 06/07/2021. The subject property, commonly known as the Winecup Gamble Ranch ("the Property"), comprises approximately 247,500 deeded acres, rights to federal grazing permits covering approximately 558,080 acres, and Nevada state grazing rights covering approximately 142,800 acres. P. 26(a)(2)(C). Questions about what facts are most relevant or reliable . The duty to preserve commenced at least by this date. SEE ORDER FOR DETAILS. Winecup Gamble Ranch - No Longer Available - Bates Land Consortium ), After remand, the parties reinitiated discovery. Co. v. Mendelsohn, 552 U.S. 379, 384-87 (2008). Godwin declares that he has extensive experience in railroad construction and design, and specializes in "railroad engineering, railroad construction engineering, filed supervision, damage mitigation, working in hurricane, flood, and other emergency situations, and rebuilding railroads to restore service as quickly and efficiently as possible." Winecup Gamble, Inc. v. Ranch | 3:17-cv-00163-ART-CSD | D. Nev 163. As the Court articulated above, Godwin is qualified to opine on such topics as railroad design and construction, based on his training and experience, which includes opining on the industry standard for culvert size in this context. at 43:14-25), upgrading to a new computer during this time (Id. 21-15415 | 2021-03-09, U.S. District Courts | Property | Union Pacific filed its original complaint on August 10, 2017, against Winecup Gamble, Winecup Ranch, LLC, and Paul Fireman. 20; ECF No. 152. 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. 2000). Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. v. Thitchener, 192 P.3d 243, 252-53 (Nev 2008) (citing Evans v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., 5 P.3d 1043, 1052 (2000)). 125) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part, in accordance with this Order. 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. The Court will however leave open the ability for parties to prepare jury binders solely for evidence that has been admitted during trial for the jurors to take with them into the jury room for deliberations if the parties prefer that over the electronic exhibits. Union Pacific argues that 49 C.F.R. Defendant aptly analogizes to a Southern District of New York case that predates the 2015 amendment, but which this District has relied on subsequent to the amendment. On the other hand, harsher sanctions are available if the moving party shows that the nonmoving party acted with the intent to deprive the moving party of the information's use in the litigation, then the Court may (1) presume that the lost information was unfavorable to the party, (2) instruct the jury that it may or must presume the information was unfavorable to the party, or (3) dismiss the action or enter a default judgment. (ECF No. The Court finds that while Winecup's disclosure that it intends to have these witnesses testify as a non-retained experts was technically late, Union Pacific has not been prejudiced by this late disclosure and it is harmless. (ECF No. 3:21-CV-00226 | 2021-05-14, U.S. District Courts | Contract | 1993) (internal quotation marks omitted), overruled on other grounds by United States v. Nordby, 225 F.3d 1053 (9th Cir. The ranch, in 2016, was for sale again. 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. 154. Until that secondary proceeding, Union Pacific is precluded from introducing evidence related to Winecup's financial situation or the sale of the Winecup ranch; Winecup's sixth motion is granted in part and denied in part. Mediation Questionnaire due on 03/16/2021. 141). Newberry v. Cty. "The decision of whether to allow the jury to take notes is left entirely to the discretion of the trial court." Lindon's criticism of Union Pacific's hydrology expert, Daryoush Razavian, are admissible. 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. "A statutory violation is negligence per se if the injured party belongs to the class of persons whom the statute was intended to protect, and the injury suffered is of the type the statute was intended to prevent." 112, 2:15-22.) The Secretary of Transportation is given broad discretion to "prescribe regulations and issue orders for every area of railroad safety . For clarity, the Court address the parties' competing motions for exclusion together here. 175-2. During the deposition of Winecup's designated Rule 30(b)(6) witness, James Rogers, he testified that he "did not know" the answers to several of Union Pacific's questions. However, the court may exclude otherwise relevant evidence "if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of" unfair prejudice. 155. Appellant Winecup Gamble, Inc. opening brief due 05/07/2021. "); Shamnoski v. PG Energy, 579 Pa. 652, 671 (Pa. 2004) (reasoning that for a negligence per se holding, "the statute at issue would have to be so specific as to leave little question that a person or entity found in violation of it deviated from a reasonable standard of care." 80 at 2. ECF No. Id. Union Pacific's third motion in limine to facilitate efficient management of exhibits and testimony (ECF No. After reviewing this agreement and amendment, we disagree with the district court. Union Pacific motions the Court to prohibit Winecup from offering any expert witnesses, including expert testimony from Luke Opperman, the Nevada Department of Water Resources engineer who inspected both the 23 Mile Dam and the Dake Dam before and after the incident, because he was not disclosed as an expert and Winecup failed to provide a written report as required under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2)(A)-(B). Public Records Policy. 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. 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 Nos. He has "significant experience with hydrometerorology, surface water hydrology, modeling, and dam safety hydrology." 3. See order for instructions and details. Union Pacific's combined fifth and sixth motion in limine to bar two opinions of Derek Godwin (ECF No. 3d 949, 959 (N.D. Cal. Date of service: 07/28/2020. Joe Glascock is a General Manager at Winecup Gamble Ranch based in Montello, Nevada. ECF No. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Union Pacific's ninth motion in limine to bar mention to jury of notion that Nevada's dam statutes and regulations do not apply to the Winecup dams due to their age (ECF No. at 813 (internal quotation marks and 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. Viewing a thread - Winecup-Gamble Ranch for sale Winecup opposes this request as unnecessary. See Francis v. MSC Cruises, S.A., Case No. The Court finds that both arguments go not to Lindon's methodology, but to the data imputed. The Court therefore finds that Union Pacific has failed to provide a statute upon which to argue negligence per se; Winecup's motion (ECF No. 405, 406 (W.D. Godwin's opinions on pre-flood design structures are admissible. Paul Fireman was Winecup's sole shareholder and was initially a named party in the suit. ), The original terms of the agreement contained a comprehensive risk-of-loss provision. 143) is DENIED. See ECF No. 131) is DENIED without prejudice. The Court agrees with Winecup. Gordon Ranch attempted to purchase real property located in northern Nevada from Winecup Gamble in 2016. Winecup intends to introduce Godwin's opinion as evidence of what size culverts should be used based on the industry standard. at 2-3. 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. (Id. These facts are sufficient for the Court to draw an inference that Mr. Worden acted intentionally. Co. v. Winecup Ranch, LLC, Case No. ECF No. Given the nature of the lost ESI, the Court finds that it must give the harshest sanction of a case dispositive ruling. The Court reiterates that is open to presiding over a bench trial via ZOOM video conferencing if the parties are amendable to such a solution. 14. winecup gamble ranch llc. Mediation Questionnaire due on 07/29/2020. A 44:19-45:1.) ECF No. Union Pacific requests the Court bar Winecup from asking questions or offering evidence or argument about "consulting experts," pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(4)(D). 127) is DENIED. Id. The Court reiterates that the District Court has temporarily suspended all jury trials until further notice. Godwin calculated the cost of rebuilding the embankments using data from RS Means 2018 and adjusted the total to 2017 prices. Cal. 160-2. 422 (S.D.N.Y. 2019), reassignment is appropriate to preserve the appearance of justice, see In re 3 Benvin, 791 F.3d 1096, 1104 (9th Cir. See Part III.A.1.iii. 134) is DENIED without prejudice. 158 at 2. 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. To reach his opinion, Godwin considered the drainage area and peak flows for hypothetical storm eventsnothing in the record disputes that this is an appropriate method for making such a determination. Second, Winecup argues that even if it does apply, it cannot have retroactive applicability. Today, the provinces of Canada still uphold their own gambling laws, making it a little tricky to gamble online legally if you live in a province with a negative attitude towards gambling. On or about February 8, 2017, the 23 Mile dam overtopped and breached in two locations. "Expert witnesses should not be appointed where they are not necessary or significantly useful for the trier of fact to comprehend a material issue in a case." Union Pacific also requests that the Court permit and provide a means for jurors to take notes. Razavian opines that floodwater from 23 Mile dam split as it came downhill with some water heading toward the Dake dam while other water reached the tracks at mile post 670, causing a build-up of water that ultimately caused the washout of Union Pacific's tracks at mile post 670.03. Id. 5. Therefore, Union Pacific's fifth and sixth motions in limine are denied. See Sprint/United Mgmt. [11769971] (BLS) [Entered: 07/28/2020 05:05 PM], (#2) Filed (ECF) Appellant Winecup Gamble, Inc. Gamble Ranch - Straddling the Wyoming & Utah Border 1,130 Deeded Acres Tucked Into Butch Cassidy Country Sold Overview & Featured Qualities Previously Offered at $4,300,000 Now Available at $3,850,000 Close to High Uinta Mountain Wilderness Remarkable 3,800 SF Lodge Fine Set of Cattle-Handling Facilities Two Additional Homes for Manager & Guests IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Winecup's second motion in limine to exclude evidence and argument that NAC 535.240 applies to the 23 Mile and Dake dams (ECF No. See ECF No. Winecup's expert Derek Godwin provided opinions on three topics: (1) pre-flood design structures at mileposts 670.03, 672.14, 677.32, and 679.28; (2) re-routing costs and the reasonableness of the routes and costs; and (3) reconstruction costs and the reasonableness of replacement structures. B at 23:14-21.) 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. 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. The Court heard selected oral argument on four of these motions on June 25, 2020 (ECF No. ECF No. Winecup and Gordon Ranch entered into a Purchase and Sale Agreement with an effective date of October 18, 2016 (the "Purchase Agreement") for sale of approximately 247,500 acres, together with other real and personal property rights, interests, and cattle, in Elko County, Nevada. Section 42.001(1) "plainly requires evidence that a defendant acted with a culpable state of mind," and the defendant's conduct "at a minimum, must exceed mere recklessness or gross negligence." Great Ranches of the Great Basin - American Cowboy Winecup opposes, arguing that Union Pacific cites no authority or foundation for the Court on which to make such a ruling. 1989)). There is evidence within the record that in 2008 Winecup was considering breaching the Dake dam; the correspondence indicated that it was awaiting more information from the State Engineer and that an inspection of the dam occurred in February 2009. Winecup does not oppose prohibiting asking questions or offering evidence or argument about the plaintiff's consulting experts, so long as "consulting expert" means "expert employed only for trial preparation." ECF No. Get free access to the complete judgment in Winecup Gamble, Inc. v. Ranch on CaseMine. iii.

North Attleboro Obituaries, Brad Krasowski Fish Hawk, 1932 German Presidential Election, Articles W