winecup gamble ranch lawsuit

135) is denied in part and granted in part. First, as to the gage stream technique, Union Pacific's expert concluded that because none of the six streams Lindon relied on were located in the "relevant watershed," this technique was "inferior" to the technique he used, the CN technique. Northeast corner of Nevada bordering Utah. 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. Under Nevada law, punitive damages are available in a negligence suit "where it is proven by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant has been guilty of oppression, fraud or malice, express or implied[.]" Accordingly, the Court finds that section 213.33 does not preempt Winecup's affirmative defense. See Madrigal v Treasure Island Corp., Case No. (Id.). Co. v. Gen. Elec. Id. Given the nature of the lost ESI, the Court finds that it must give the harshest sanction of a case dispositive ruling. 108.) ECF No. 422 (S.D.N.Y. Applying this test, the Court finds that Defendant has satisfied its burden. 127). Once a prevailing party has been determined, that party should be allowed to request or move for an award of reasonable attorneys' fees, as such an award is available to the prevailing party under the plain terms of the agreement. Winecup Gamble, Inc. v. Ranch - casetext.com 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. 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. 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. However, Mr. Worden performed most of the negotiations for Plaintiff in reaching the agreement and amendment generating numerous emails and text messages with Mr. Fireman and others that allegedly no longer exist as well as other lost ESI. 195), and rules on all now pending. The lead plaintiff in the lawsuit, Montreal resident Qing Wang, lost $11,720 to enrolment fees charged by C.S.T. Accordingly, the Court denies Union Pacific's tenth motion in limine (ECF No. Judgment was entered accordingly. 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." 34 Ex. Lindon's opinion on the subject remained the same in this disclosure as it was in his prior report. P. 37 Advisory Committee Notes to the 2015 Amendment). 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." 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. 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. 111 at 16. 801(d)(2)(D). ECF No. "Generally speaking, supplementation of an expert report is proper where it is based on new information obtained after the expert disclosure deadline and the supplemental report was served before the time for pretrial disclosures." (ECF No. ECF No. Stephanie Hoit Lee & David N. Finley, Federal Motions in Limine 1:1 (2018). 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). 155. ECF No. 89 16, 32, 50; 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. See Hawthorne Partners v. AT&T Techs., Inc., 831 F. Supp. j***@winecupgambleranch.com. 20101. Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief. 141) is DENIED. It's about 100 miles from Elko, Nev . R. Civ. I-80 and US93, Elko, NV, 89801 - Pasture/Ranch For Sale - LoopNet .." Id. 1980) (internal citations omitted). Id. Appellee Gordon Ranch LP answering brief due 07/21/2021. 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. Union Pacific owns railroad track that runs through 23 Western states, a portion of which runs east/west across the Utah/Nevada state line and through Elko County, Nevada. Accordingly, the Court enters such a sanction and closes the case. 168 at 2. i. AnyLaw is the FREE and Friendly legal research service that gives you unlimited access to massive amounts of valuable legal data. That means, under Nevada law, punitive damages proceedings are bifurcated. ECF No. UniCourt uses cookies to improve your online experience, for more information please see our Privacy Policy. Cancellation and Refund Policy, Privacy Policy, and ECF No. The Court will not exclude Union Pacific from offering Fireman's deposition testimony at this time. (citing Smiley v. Citibank (South Dakota), N.A., 517 U.S. 735, 744 n.3 (1996)). However, the Court is hopeful that the parties can agree upon the admissibility of exhibits as much as reasonably practicable. Union Pacific also requests the Court take judicial notice of seven exhibits. ), The original terms of the agreement contained a comprehensive risk-of-loss provision. 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)."). Date of service: 03/16/2021. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. It was first added to the regulatory schedule in 2003, along with the definitions in NAC 535.055, Inflow design flood, and NAC 535.080, probable maximum flood. However, "if a regulation is a first-time interpretive regulation, application to preexisting issues may be permissible." 154. 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. 111, 112, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 139, 175, 176 & 193), and 6 motions in limine filed by Winecup Gamble, Inc. ("Winecup") (ECF Nos. And Union Pacific and Razavian have had this supplemental disclosure since July 12, 2019. & Constructors Inc., 880 F.2d 219, 221 (9th Cir. 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. Again, the Court agrees with Winecup: the Court cannot make a ruling on whether judicial notice is proper without sufficient information. The Court considers the overall statutory and regulatory scheme and finds that the hazard classifications assigned by the State Engineer must be considered within the context of NAC 535.240. 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. 2018) (quoting 7 James Wm. 2004); see Mizzoni v. Allison, 2018 WL 3203623 at*5 (D. Nev. 2018) (citing to Zubulake). Id. 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. 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. Read More . IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Complaint (ECF No. Id. NAC 535.140. Winecup further provides that the model is generally accepted in this scientific community and has been the subject of publications. See ECF No. are for the jury.") P. 26(a)(2)(B)(i). Little pre-trial motion practice has occurred in this case other than the 27 pending motions in limine. Appellee Gordon Ranch LP answering brief due 11/30/2020. Appellee Gordon Ranch LP answering brief due 06/07/2021. [20-16411] (AD) [Entered: 07/28/2020 06:44 PM], Docket(#3) MEDIATION ORDER FILED: By 08/11/2020, counsel to email Circuit Mediator regarding settlement potential. ECF No. Price v. Sinnott, 460 P.2d 837, 839-40 (Nev. 1969). The Court finds that Lindon's opinions on both meteorology and hydrology are reliable. 2d 844, 846 (N.D. Ohio 2004). The Court finds that multiple exhibit binders each with a few hundred exhibits is impractical and unnecessary given the electronics available in the courtroom. Date of service: 07/28/2020. Research the case of Winecup Gamble, Inc. v. Gordon Ranch LP, from the D. Nevada, 03-01-2023. Union Pacific argues that Winecup should be precluded from arguing before the jury that any of Nevada's dam statutes and regulationsNevada Revised Statutes ("NRS") 535.005 et seq. Additionally, the Ninth Circuit left open the Defendant's claim that the Plaintiff's interpretation amounts to an unenforceable penalty clause. Godwin provides two opinions regarding rerouting costs: (1) "[a]ll train traffic should have been re-routed from (or near) Tecoma to (or near) Lucin on the No.2 track;" and (2) that other washouts, not attributable to Winecup, prevented trains from moving, and therefore, Winecup is not responsible for those rerouting costs. SEE ORDER FOR DETAILS. 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. /// ///, ii. 167. It's as wide and wild and complicated a landscape as there is in today's West. Zubulake, 229 F.R.D. (#7) MEDIATION ORDER FILED: This case is RELEASED from the Mediation Program. The Investment Issue: Winecup Gamble Ranch - The Land Report Terminating Sanctions Reversed After Oral Litigation Hold Goes Awry Mediation Questionnaire due on 03/16/2021. Therefore, the Court denies Winecup's motion to preclude any mention of this regulation. 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. James Rogers Email & Phone Number | ZoomInfo The schedule is set as follows: Appellant Winecup Gamble, Inc. In addition to other research goals, Rogers hopes that the scientists will work with ranchers from the ground up to develop outcome-based grazing metrics that are relevant to how ranchers manage their operations. A, 47:2-6.) See Ambrosini v. Labarraque, 101 F.3d 129, 141 (D.C. Cir. 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."

Suing Seller For Breach Of Contract Real Estate Florida, Articles W