winecup gamble ranch lawsuit

Cases involving other real property matters not classified elsewhere, (#6) The Mediation Questionnaire for this case was filed on 07/29/2020. Under Nevada law, a "jury may not apportion fault to non-parties, and evidence or argumentation directed to showing non-parties' comparative fault is therefore inadmissible." 2:19-CV-00414 | 2019-06-17, U.S. District Courts | Contract | 132) is granted. 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. 1. FED. 157-32 at 2. /// /// ///. Accordingly, the late disclosure was harmless, and Lindon will be permitted to testify on the subject. NAC 535.140. 80.) ECF No. ECF No. ECF No. 89 22-24. ROBERT C. JONES United States District Judge. See Emblaze Ltd. v. Apple Inc., 52 F. Supp. 7. Under the umbrella of ROGER, the amount of collaborative work . These two actsmodification and abandonmentconstitute the "construction, reconstruction, or alterations" contemplated in NRS 535.010. He declares that he has been "personally involved with rerouting for a Class 1 railroad approximately twelve times over the past six years." 15, 2021) (unpublished), the Ninth Circuit reversed entry of terminating sanctions, vacated the judgment, and remanded for further proceedings. Specifically, Union Pacific requests that it be permitted to amend its witness list to include Fireman and Worden to testify via their respective depositions from Gordon Ranch, and add the information to the undisputed fact section of the Order. Union Pacific requests the Court bar Winecup from admitting a portion of an email from a Union Pacific employee that contains the profane reference, "Sandbagging S.O.B's," arguing that if the email is admitted, the offending language should be redacted because it is irrelevant, unfairly prejudicial, and inadmissible opinion evidence. Winecup's fifth motion in limine to exclude evidence and argument related to an Emergency Action Plan for the Dake dam (ECF No. 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. The proponent of preemption must establish that the regulations more than "touch upon" or "relate to" the subject matter"pre-emption will lie only if the federal regulations substantially subsume the subject matter of the relevant state law." Casetext, Inc. and Casetext are not a law firm and do not provide legal advice. P. 37(c)(1). Why is this public record being published online? ECF No. 2:12-cv-01727-APG-NJK, 2014 WL 12646048, at *2 (D. Nev. May 28, 2014). 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. Read More . 128), and its related nineteenth motion in limine to preclude experts disclosed on May 13, 2020 (ECF No. Rather, "proof of a deviation from an administrative regulation is only evidence of negligence; not negligence per se," and likewise, "proof of compliance with such a regulation" is not proof of due care, but simply evidence of such care. Date of service: 03/16/2021. (Id.) 150) is denied without prejudice. FED. While a degree or certificate in a certain area is helpful to support expert qualification, a witness can be qualified by "knowledge, skill, experience, [or] training," as well as education. (ECF No. 111 & 112. Here, culverts and earthen embankments existed at the washed-out track locations. Union Pacific's combined fifth and sixth motion in limine to bar two opinions of Derek Godwin (ECF No. P. 37(e)(2) are available. However, the Advisory Committee Notes make clear that the 2015 amendment forecloses a court from imposing sanctions for spoliation of ESI under that basis. 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. Again, the Court agrees with Winecup: the Court cannot make a ruling on whether judicial notice is proper without sufficient information. 195), and rules on all now pending. Colony Ins. Accordingly, the Union Pacific's fourth motion in limine to pre-admit exhibits for use in juror binders (ECF No. 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[.]" Likewise, Union Pacific's other arguments go to the weight of his testimony, not admissibility, and are best left to vigorous cross examination. 134) is denied without prejudice. ECF Nos. The Federal Railroad Safety Act ("FRSA") was enacted "to promote safety in every area of railroad operations and reduce railroad-related accidents and incidents." NAC 535.240 is the only place in Chapter 535 that explains, colloquially, that a significant hazard dam must withstand a 1000-year flood event and a low hazard dam must withstand a 100-year flood event. 49 U.S.C. 120-3. UniCourt uses cookies to improve your online experience, for more information please see our Privacy Policy. ), The original terms of the agreement contained a comprehensive risk-of-loss provision. The case status is Pending - Other Pending. Rather, Union Pacific argues that its expert's rerouting analysis was more correct than Godwin's opinion based on these considerations. WINECUP GAMBLE, INC., a Nevada corporation, Plaintiff, v. GORDON RANCH, LP, a Texas limited partnership, Defendant. As a hydrologist, he regularly works with precipitation data, and is "familiar with analyzing and calculating precipitation numbers," receiving formal training on this topic in addition to his years of experience. ///. ECF No. Again, whether a technique is better or worse than another, or whether the expert made a computational error, should be left to cross-examination and presentation of contrary evidence; it is not appropriate to exclude such expert testimony. 131) is DENIED without prejudice. 122) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part in accordance with this Order. The Judges overseeing this case are Robert C. Jones and Valerie P. Cooke. Union Pacific's sixteenth motion in limine to bar two words in an email with profane reference (ECF No. Id. Lindon's criticism of Union Pacific's hydrology expert, Daryoush Razavian, are admissible. v. Reyes, Case No. The lead plaintiff in the lawsuit, Montreal resident Qing Wang, lost $11,720 to enrolment fees charged by C.S.T. 8, 2020). 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. Winecup intends to introduce Godwin's opinion as evidence of what size culverts should be used based on the industry standard. 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. 2002) (finding that when proper foundation for the authenticity of an employee's email has been laid, and the email was sent within the scope of employment, the email is admissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2)(D)). 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. The parties are reminded that the meet-and-confer is not perfunctory, and the parties should not seek Court intervention unless they have reached an impasse and have no other choice but to seek the Court's guidance. 127). 176. 159. 1. 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. 5. 2. Union Pacific's eleventh motion in limine to bar Rule 702 opinions (A) generally, if not in expert reports, and (B) specifically, from Luke Opperman (ECF No. The case involved the sale of a ranch and whether $5 million in . Id. 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. 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. Winecup opposes, arguing that Union Pacific cites no authority or foundation for the Court on which to make such a ruling. Banks ex rel Banks v. Sunrise Hosp., 102 P.3d 52, 67 (Nev. 2004). However, the statements contained within the email are articulating what an NDOT manager told the Union Pacific employee. 111-7 (Union Pacific's hydrology expert declared that the HEC-HMS is an acceptable method to calculate runoff). Razavian provides that his opinion on the mile post 670.03 washout is based on (1) his personal aerial observations and photographs taken of the area during a February 11, 2018 helicopter ride; (2) the lay of the vegetation in the area and damage to track embankments; (3) review of a topographic map of the area and the features of the land; (4) a photograph take by a news helicopter the day of the flood; (5) the presence of ice blocks on the tracks between mile post 669 at 670; and (6) an account in the Elko Daily from an NDOT Sheriff who noted that the water went around the Dake Reservoir. iii. The court's role is to "screen the jury from unreliable nonsense opinions, . ), After remand, the parties reinitiated discovery. 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. [12101491] (DLM) [Entered: 05/04/2021 12:13 PM], Docket(#7) Filed (ECF) Streamlined request for extension of time to file Opening Brief by Appellant Winecup Gamble, Inc.. New requested due date is 06/21/2021. As discussed in full below, the Court will permit Union Pacific to argue the issue of punitive damages. Id. See NRS 535.030. 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. A.) IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties are to submit an amended pretrial order within 45 days of the filing of this Order. 2:19-CV-00414 | 2019-06-17, U.S. District Courts | Contract | Of Clark v. LB Props., Inc., 315 P.3d 294, 296 (Nev. 2013) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Here, there can be no dispute that the parties are not the same and the subject matter is differentthis is a negligence action while Gordon Ranch was a contract dispute. This short-term action was again noted in the 2016 inspection report which would indicate that Winecup had failed to provide these plans for 20 years. (Id.) Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief. Id. at a trial, unless the failure was substantially justified or is harmless." 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. Winecup argues that Union Pacific should be precluded from offering evidence of negligence per se because it cannot be based on administrative regulations and the one statute that it believes Union Pacific pleads under this theory, NRS 535.030, also fails. 3d 949, 959 (N.D. Cal. 2. As part of its holding, the Ninth Circuit noted that that the Court may consider parol evidence to resolve ambiguities in contractual language under Nevada law. 129) is DENIED without prejudice. In response, Union Pacific moves in its nineteenth motion in limine to preclude these three witnesses from offering expert testimony because of the late disclosure. 44. ECF No. 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." [12029509] (JBS) [Entered: 03/09/2021 01:23 PM], U.S. District Courts | Property | Research the case of Winecup Gamble, Inc. v. Gordon Ranch LP, from the D. Nevada, 03-17-2022. Some are as large as 67,000 acres, adds Bates' associate David Packer. However, as applied and in context, the terms of the parties' amended agreement are ambiguous on the point of whether the contract was intended to shift the risk-of-loss scheme. 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. [20-16411] (AD) [Entered: 07/29/2020 06:44 PM], Docket(#5) Filed (ECF) Appellee Gordon Ranch LP Mediation Questionnaire. 167. 157-24 at 3-4. 4. ECF No. 127) is DENIED. 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. Counsel are requested to contact the Circuit Mediator should circumstances develop that warrant settlement discussions. ECF No. As the parties have already agreed to prepare their exhibits electronically, juror binders are unnecessarily redundant. ECF No. Id. "A contract is ambiguous if it is reasonably susceptible to more than one interpretation." The electronic display system further allows the parties to show the electronic exhibit to the witness first, before it is published to the jurors, and the witness may make useful electronic marks on the exhibit, such as circling or pointing to relevant portions. SEND MQ: Yes. at 3. 3:20-CV-00029 | 2020-01-15, U.S. District Courts | Contract | 142) is GRANTED, as exhibits 10 and 11 contain information Union Pacific has marked "Confidential" under the Court's April 17, 2018 protective order and the request to seal is unopposed by Winecup. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Winecup's fourth motion in limine to exclude evidence and argument that Union Pacific is entitled to punitive damages (ECF No. The most relevant evidence for these determinations would again be Mr. Worden's lost ESI. 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. 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]. R. CIV. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(c)(1) provides that "[i]f a party fails to provide information or identify a witness as required by Rule 26(a) or (e), the party is not allowed to use that information or witness . Union Pacific's fifteenth motion in limine to bar one paragraph in email referencing contract truck driver incidents (ECF No. 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. 134) is DENIED without prejudice. Winecup further provides that the model is generally accepted in this scientific community and has been the subject of publications. Winecup opposes. 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. The briefing schedule previously set by the court is amended as follows: appellant's opening brief is due May 21, 2021; appellee's answering brief is due June 21, 2021; appellant's optional reply brief is due within 21 days from the service date of the answering brief. Winecup owned and managed the Dake Reservoir dam (ID #NV00109, legal description 189DN40 E70 07D) and 23 Mile dam (ID #NV00110, legal description 189CN42 E67 15BA), both located on Thousand Springs Creek, in Elko County, Nevada. at 432. B, 22:14-21.) The schedule is set as follows: Appellant Winecup Gamble, Inc. ECF No. 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." [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). Id. 139-4 at 4. 166. 91). at 813 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). 155. 149) is GRANTED. 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. The State Engineer is also authorized to inspect all dams and order dam owners to make modifications and alterations necessary for safety, which presumably is based on the hazard classification of the dam. By continuing to use this website, you agree to UniCourts General Disclaimer, Terms of Service, Here, the email communication between Union Pacific's employees appears to be within the scope of their employment. It is not common for courts to appoint neutral experts and "usually do so only in exceptional cases in which the ordinary adversary process does not suffice or when a case presents compelling circumstances warranting appointment of an expert." "This general proposition should not be overstated, however, because it applies only where the purportedly conflicting evidence truly, and without good reason or explanation, is in conflict, i.e., where it cannot be deemed as clarifying or simply providing full context for the Rule 30(b)(6) deposition." Ins. 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. ECF No. ECF Nos. Plaintiff admits that the sole action they took was to inform Mr. Worden to preserve relevant documents, who then relayed this message to his IT department at his accounting firm. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Union Pacific's seventh motion in limine to bar Winecup's contributory negligence defense and Derek Godwin's contributory negligence opinion (ECF No. 111. Lindon disputes both asserted errors. Plaintiff conducted a deposition of Mr. Worden subpoenaing all of his documents (including ESI) regarding discussions of the sale of ranch and amendments, the damage to the property, the repairs of the property, breakage of dams, and insurance information. Lindon's expert testimony is admissible. 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. However, pursuant to Nevada law, no information related to the financials of the defendant is permitted prior to the jury making a determination that punitive damages are warranted. 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. (ECF No. SEE ORDER FOR DETAILS. Transcript ordered by 08/21/2020. 14. See ECF No. 154-2 at 5. It is uncontested that 23 Mile dam is classified as a low hazard dam, and Dake dam as a significant hazard dam. 125) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part, in accordance with this Order. 129) is denied without prejudice. 155-4 at 5; ECF No. See ECF Nos. 112) are denied. 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. Winecup does not oppose this request. The Honorable Fernando M. Olguin, United States District Judge for the Central District of California, sitting by designation. 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." Include Ninth Circuit case number in subject line. 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. Amarel v. Connell, 102 F.3d 1494, 1515 (9th Cir. B at 2. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Union Pacific's sixteenth motion in limine to bar two words in an email with profane reference (ECF No. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Union Pacific's third motion in limine to facilitate efficient management of exhibits and testimony (ECF No. 139 at 8. 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. Plaintiff declined to repair the property. The Court agrees with Union Pacific that the email cited is hearsay that does not fall within Rule 803(20): whether a state or federal agency requested that the Dake dam be preserved for pike is not "general historical events important to" the Elko or Nevada community. 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."

Bungalow For Sale Stourport Road, Kidderminster, James Burke Suffolk County, Myq Home Bridge Vs Internet Gateway, What Did The Menendez Brothers Parents Do To Them, University Of Wyoming Honor Roll Spring 2021, Articles W