winecup gamble ranch lawsuit

And, necessarily, the regulation must apply to all dams, not just those in existence after March 15, 1951. The Court agrees with this case and holds that the 2015 amendment did not lessen Plaintiff's burden. [11769734] [20-16411] (Jordan, David) [Entered: 07/28/2020 03:34 PM], Docket(#1) DOCKETED CAUSE AND ENTERED APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL. See ECF No. 175-1. It was not until May 13, 2020, that Winecup disclosed in its supplemental expert disclosure that it intended to call Opperman, Holt, and Quaglieri as non-retained experts. CSX Transp., Inc. v. Easterwood, 507 U.S. 658, 664 (1993). 122 at 2. A.) 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. 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."). (ECF No. P. 26(a)(2)(B) (emphasis added). ECF No. [12077160] (AF) [Entered: 04/16/2021 11:36 AM], (#5) MEDIATION CONFERENCE RESCHEDULED - DIAL-IN Assessment Conference, 04/14/2021, 9:30 a.m. Pacific Time (originally scheduled on 03/31/2021). Winecup argues that Lindon is qualified to opine on both meteorological and hydrological issues, and that Union Pacific's arguments do not go toward the admissibility of Lindon's opinions, but only the weight, and amount to nothing more than a "battle of the experts." 193. ECF No. FED. By continuing to use this website, you agree to UniCourts General Disclaimer, Terms of Service, 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. 157-24 at 3-4. 141, 143, 149, 150, 151, 152). ECF No. Sprawling across the very heart of buckaroo country, the Winecup Gamble Ranch encompasses a checkerboarded landscape of 984,000 acres, more than half of which is owned by the public and managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). "); NAC 535.080 ("Probable maximum flood" means "a hypothetical flood whose magnitude is: 1. 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."). 4 (Letter between counsel noting a telephone conversation on February 21, 2017 between counsel discussing their legal positions).) 127) is DENIED. Id. R. CIV. He declares that he has been "personally involved with rerouting for a Class 1 railroad approximately twelve times over the past six years." See Sagebrush, Ltd. v. Carson City, 660 P.2d 1013, 1015 (Nev. 1983) ("Whether a legislative enactment provides a standard of conduct in the particular situation presented by the plaintiff is a question of statutory interpretation and construction for the court. [11762326] (JBS) [Entered: 07/22/2020 02:44 PM], U.S. Courts Of Appeals | Property | 1985). Id. [11769971] (BLS) [Entered: 07/28/2020 05:05 PM], (#2) Filed (ECF) Appellant Winecup Gamble, Inc. See Shaw v. CitiMortgage, Inc., 201 F.Supp.3d 1222, 1264 (D. Nev. 2016) (the company's serious lack of practices, policies and procedures to deal with and explain the company's positions and actions supported the Court's punitive damage award). 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. WINECUP GAMBLE, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. GORDON RANCH LP, Defendant-Appellee. R. CIV. No other issues will be entertained without leave of the Court. 164. ECF No. Additionally, Union Pacific does not object to Winecup providing jurors with their own binders. 2d 844, 846 (N.D. Ohio 2004). A, 45:18-46:13.) 1986) (citing Georgia-Pacific Corp. v. U.S., 640 F.2d 328, 334 (Ct. Cl. Though the Winecup Gamble does not cover 3 million acres anymore, it is still a large ranch operating on about 1,000,000 acres of the original ranch running Brangus and Angus cattle bred to Herefords. SEE ORDER FOR DETAILS. Joe Glascock is a General Manager at Winecup Gamble Ranch based in Montello, Nevada. The Court finds that Winecup has had more than enough time to consider this opinion and consult with its own expert on the subject such that it has not been prejudiced by Union Pacific's failure to disclose the opinion in Razavian's expert report. Former artistic swimming athletes seek damages for alleged abuse - CBC R. EVID. Winecup Gamble, Inc. v. Ranch | 3:17-cv-00163-ART-CSD | D. Nev Winecup Gamble Ranch. On July 12, 2019, following this additional investigation, Winecup submitted its Supplemental Third Disclosure, which included survey information, photographs taken during the site visit, an updated model, and Lindon's conclusion that water from the 23 Mile dam did not cause the washout of the tracks at mile post 670.03. Union Pacific's eighteenth motion in limine to bar Winecup from offering evidence or argument about preserving the Dake dam for pike (ECF No. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Union Pacific's first motion in limine to exclude meteorological opinions of Matthew Lindon and to appoint a neutral expert (ECF No. 1980)). Mason v. Fakhimi, 865 P.2d 333, 335 (Nev. 1993) (citing Haromy v. Sawyer, 654 P.2d 1022, 1023 (Nev. 1982). . Evidence is relevant if "it has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence." See ECF No. 2:12-cv-01727-APG-NJK, 2014 WL 12646048, at *2 (D. Nev. May 28, 2014). 125. Nevertheless, Mr. Worden claims that he does not have the emails anymore as a result of a company policy to not preserve emails (Id. And courts are hesitant to appoint a neutral expert when parties have retained their own qualified experts. Having reviewed Lindon's declaration detailing his 40-year work history in the field of hydrology, including work in hydrological assessments and modeling, dam inspections, and evaluations, the Court agrees that Lindon is qualified to opine on hydrology issues. The Largest that could be expected from the most severe combination of critical meteorological and hydrological conditions that are reasonably possible for the region in which the dam is located; and 2. 37, 89. 154. 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. 122) is granted in part and denied in part. Union Pacific motions the Court to bar Winecup from offering evidence or argument that the Fish & Game allegedly requested that the Dake dam be preserved for the pike they had put in it. Appellant Winecup Gamble, Inc. opening brief due 10/30/2020. 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. 18-16463-CIV-SELTZER, 2018 WL 4693526, at *1 (S.D. 7. 125) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part, in accordance with this Order. A 43:2-7.) 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. ECF No. Fifth, the ESI was deleted without the intent to deprive Defendant of evidence. These two actsmodification and abandonmentconstitute the "construction, reconstruction, or alterations" contemplated in NRS 535.010. R.R. Union Pacific motions the Court to exclude both Winecup's contributory negligence defense and Godwin's expert opinions that relate to this defense. 108 at 11. He further provides that he has been working for Class 1 and shortline railroads since 2005, starting his own railroad engineering and construction observation company in 2013. 1980) (internal citations omitted). [11762326] (JBS) [Entered: 07/22/2020 02:44 PM]. 143. The offending language in the email states: A statement that is offered against an opposing party and "was made by the party's agent or employee on a matter within the scope of that relationship and while it existed" is not hearsay. Appellant Winecup Gamble, Inc. opening brief due 10/30/2020. 167. Joe Glascock's Phone Number and Email Last Update. /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// ///. The Court agrees with Union Pacific that under Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Winecup is prohibited from asking questions or offering evidence or argument about the plaintiff's consulting experts. Id. 141). (Id.) A 44:19-45:1.) ECF No. Union Pacific argues that because Winecup was required under Nevada law to maintain the 23 Mile dam to withstand a 100-year flood event and the Dake dam to withstand a 1000-year flood event, the failure of the dams and the subsequent flooding could not be considered "abnormal" or free from "human assistance or influence" such that Winecup could prove the prima facia elements of the defense. 402. Id. 1) is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. The Court will not preclude Union Pacific from presenting evidence and argument that a reasonable dam owner would have followed this regulation and maintained all dams to withstand the particular flood event based on the assigned hazard classification of its dam, including the flood standard. Id. Little pre-trial motion practice has occurred in this case other than the 27 pending motions in limine. Union Pacific concedes that Lindon is a qualified expert in hydrology. i. Winecup's contributory negligence defense is not preempted. 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." 3:17-CV-00163-RCJ-WGC (D. Nev. Jul. Specifically, Defendant requests that this Court dispositively rule in its favor for its claims in the case. ECF No. Union Pacific rebuilt these areas with steel bridges instead of rebuilding the embankments and culverts. (ECF No. The Court dismisses Plaintiff's complaint and enters judgment in favor of Defendant on its counterclaim. An Act of God "must be such a providential occurrence or extraordinary manifestation of the forces of nature that it could not reasonably have been foreseen, and the effect thereof avoided by the exercis[e] of reasonable prudence, diligence and care, or by the use of those means which the situation renders reasonable to employ." Notably, Union Pacific's expert did not conclude that the technique was generally improper. 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. 135) is DENIED in part and GRANTED in part. 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. See Madrigal v Treasure Island Corp., Case No. Godwin's opinion on reconstruction costs is admissible. Winecup argues that because the Dake dam did not fail or overtop, whether Winecup failed to submit an emergency action plan for the dam, as all significant hazard dam owners are required to do under NAC 535.320, is irrelevantthere can be no causal connection between Union Pacific's injury and Winecup's failure to submit the plan. 190. H at 1 (Privilege Log noting that Mr. Worden sent an email with the Bates Number "REV00000041" summarized as "Email re response to Margaret Ludewig" dated March 6, 2017.). Reading the parties' agreement as a whole, it is reasonably susceptible to more than one interpretation. First, the Court agrees with Winecup that under Nevada law, a violation of an administrative regulation cannot form the basis of negligence per se because "it lacks the force and effect of a substantive legislative enactment." The Court will not appoint a neutral expert. Id. 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. 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." . 130) is denied without prejudice. The parties timely responded. 161. 141 at 6. Gordon Ranch attempted to purchase real property located in northern Nevada from Winecup Gamble in 2016. (ECF No. 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. 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 arguments in opposing Godwin's testimony are best left to cross-examination and presentation of opinion evidence by Union Pacific's own experts rather than exclusion. Some of the most important evidence for this inquiry would be the work papers of Plaintiff's accountant, Mr. Worden, who no longer has any ESI on his devices regarding this case. ECF No. MANUAL FOR COMPLEX LITIGATION (FOURTH) 12.32 (2004). It is clear to the Court based on this argument that Union Pacific intends to offer the financial information as it relates to punitive damages. ON-SITE RAIL SPUR AND 2 LANDING STRIPS. The Honorable Fernando M. Olguin, United States District Judge for the Central District of California, sitting by designation. (ECF No. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Complaint (ECF No. Id. Mediation Questionnaire due on 07/29/2020. Union Pacific also requests that the Court permit and provide a means for jurors to take notes. [21-15415] (AD) [Entered: 03/16/2021 06:44 PM], Docket(#2) Filed (ECF) Appellant Winecup Gamble, Inc. NRS 535.030, titled Inspection of dams by State Engineer; powers of State Engineer to protect life or property, provides: Section 2 provides that the owner is responsible for other maintenance that is necessary to safeguard life and property. 111-7 31-33. ECF No. Union Pacific motions the Court to exclude Winecup's expert, Matthew Lindon, from providing opinions on meteorological and hydrological issues. ECF 111 at 3. 250,000 ACRES DEEDED LAND WITH GRAZING RIGHTS ON OVER 1,000,000 ACRES. 120-1. 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. He has "significant experience with hydrometerorology, surface water hydrology, modeling, and dam safety hydrology." Id. See General Order 2020-03. 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]. 168 at 2. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Union Pacific's fifteenth motion in limine to bar one paragraph in an email referencing contract truck driver incidents (ECF No. When a party challenges the correctness of the opposing party's expert's testimony, "its recourse is not exclusion of the testimony, but, rather, refutation of it by cross-examination and by the testimony of its own expert witnesses." Union Pacific Railroad Company v. Winecup Ranch, LLC et al, Prime Healthcare Services - Reno, LLC v. Hometown Health Providers Insurance Company, Inc. et al, Elko Broadband Ltd. v. Haidermota BNR, Lawyers and Counsel with Offices in Islamadad, Islamic Republic of Pakistan et al. FED. [20-16411] (AD) [Entered: 07/29/2020 06:44 PM], (#4) The Mediation Questionnaire for this case was filed on 07/28/2020. 158 at 2. See ECF No. 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. The Court finds that whether such evidence is relevant is best determined at trial. 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. 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. (ECF No. 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. The Court agrees with Winecup. Winecup opposes this motion for two reasons: (1) because N.A.C. If you do not agree with these terms, then do not use our website and/or services. Co. v. Winecup Ranch, LLC, Case No. 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. 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. Union Pacific argues that it had previously hired consulting experts early in the case who were eventually replaced by those now acting as testifying experts, which Winecup tried to learn about during discovery. The Court will not exclude Union Pacific from offering Fireman's deposition testimony at this time. Id. Second, Defendant has not established that the deletions occurred prior to a duty to preserve ESI. Gordon Ranch filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings; Winecup Gamble filed its motion for summary judgment. ECF No. Upon remand, we instruct the Chief Judge of the District of Nevada to assign this case to a different judge, Full title:WINECUP GAMBLE, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. GORDON RANCH LP, Court:UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. 3:17-CV-00157 | 2017-03-13, U.S. District Courts | Labor | 30, 2007). IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Sanctions (ECF NO. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Union Pacific's twenty-first motion in limine to amend the Pretrial Order (ECF No. [12050510] (BLS) [Entered: 03/23/2021 10:57 AM], (#4) MEDIATION CONFERENCE SCHEDULED - DIAL-IN Assessment Conference, 03/31/2021, 12:00 p.m. PACIFIC Time. Union Pacific has presented no evidence or rule to support the Court's exclusion of any and all evidence or testimony on the issue. 1996) ("By attempting to evaluate the credibility of opposing experts and the persuasiveness of competing scientific studies, the district court conflated the questions of the admissibility of expert testimony and the weight appropriately to be accorded such testimony by a fact finder."). Winecup provides that it only intends to have these experts testify to that which is contained within their respective depositions and reports. 6. Winecup opposes, arguing that the proposed instructions are improper standard of care instructions for a negligence case, the proposed list is biased in favor of Union Pacific, and if the Court is inclined to give such instructions, then it should also preliminarily instruct the jury as to all elements of negligence in a neutral and accurate manner. Northeast corner of Nevada bordering Utah. Winecup's third motion in limine to exclude argument related to Union Pacific's claim for negligence per se (ECF No.

Skyrim Learn All Enchantments Command, What Do Darcey And Stacey Do For A Living, Jeanes Hospital Blood Lab Hours, Articles W