winecup gamble ranch lawsuit
ECF No. Read More . of San Bernardino, 750 F. App'x 534, 537 (9th Cir. UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY, a Delaware corporation, Plaintiff, v. WINECUP RANCH, LLC, an Idaho Limited Liability Company; and WINECUP GAMBLE, INC., a Nevada corporation; and PAUL FIREMAN, an individual, Defendants. ; ECF No. 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. 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. Lindon's criticism of Union Pacific's hydrology expert, Daryoush Razavian, are admissible. 127. However, the court may exclude otherwise relevant evidence "if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of" unfair prejudice. This regulation, titled Requirements for approval. 149) is granted. Finally, as an adjunct professor in Civil Engineering at the University of Utah, Lindon taught a graduate level course that included water management and hydrometeorology. Union Pacific's sixteenth motion in limine to bar two words in an email with profane reference (ECF No. 89 16, 32, 50; ECF No. unless the failure was substantially justified or is harmless." 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. Winecup opposes this motion for two reasons: (1) because N.A.C. 130) is denied without prejudice. ECF Nos. 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. (See, e.g., ECF No. ECF Nos. Colony Ins. [12043650] [21-15415] (Peterson, William) [Entered: 03/16/2021 05:14 PM], Docket(#8) Streamlined request [7] by Appellant Winecup Gamble, Inc. to extend time to file the brief is approved. Plaintiff relied on the amendment to say that the earnest money was not refundable for casualty losses. 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. Union Pacific further argues that Chapter 535 of the NAC specifies when certain regulations do not apply to dams in existence prior to March 15, 1951, which indicates that any regulation without that specific exclusion applies to all dams. 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. . 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." Full title:WINECUP GAMBLE, INC., a Nevada corporation, Plaintiff, v. GORDON RANCH, Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA. 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. 129) is denied without prejudice. While Union Pacific argues that these witnesses may not be qualified to offer opinion testimony, the Court reserves ruling on specific testimony for trial. Date of service: 07/28/2020. Co., Case No. 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. 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. R. Civ. 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." 126) is DENIED. A, 47:2-6.) 2. Union Pacific does not provide the actual language of a proposed instruction, but simply lists the statutes and regulations upon which it proposes the parties craft preliminary instructions. Alaska Rent-A-Car, Inc. v. Avis Budget Group, Inc., 738 F.3d 960, 969 (9th Cir. . 155-5. A.) Research the case of Winecup Gamble, Inc. v. Gordon Ranch LP, from the D. Nevada, 03-01-2023. The amended order should include both the agreed amendments and those permitted by this Order. 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. Evidence is relevant if "it has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence." He is "active in the science of meteorology, working constantly with meteorologists at the Division of Water Resources and Salt Lake City National Weather Service office to develop products and methods for calculations." IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Union Pacific's twentieth motion in limine to permit Union Pacific witnesses to testify by video (ECF No. Winecup Gamble, Inc. v. Gordon Ranch, LP - Casetext Finally, one place to get all the court documents we need. A, 45:18-46:13.) Winecup Gamble Ranch Atmospherics - YouTube ECF No. However, the Court also agrees with Winecup that if Union Pacific's testifying expert relied on information from a consulting expert, that information would be admissible under Rule 705 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. 165. Federal Rule of Evidence 706 permits district courts, in their discretion, to appoint a neutral expert. Winecup Gamble Ranch. (internal quotations and citations omitted)). prescribes a regulation or issues an order covering the subject matter of the State requirement." 1990). 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. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA. 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. at 813 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Margrave v. Dermody Prop., 878 P.2d 291, 293 (Nev. 1994) (per curiam); see LK Comstock & Co. v. United Eng. (ECF No. However, since the Court held its first jury trial in September, the numbers of infected individuals in Washoe County has increased significantly, and led District Court Chief Judge Du to implement General Order 2020-03, postponing all in-person jury trials until further notice. 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. Id. 535.300 sets forth the requirement for new construction of dams, not existing dams; and (2) because there is ample evidence that the storm that preceded 23 Mile dam's failure, exceeded a 100-year flood event. are for the jury.") 129) is DENIED without prejudice. ECF No. Union Pac. Here, the email communication between Union Pacific's employees appears to be within the scope of their employment. Mason v. Fakhimi, 865 P.2d 333, 335 (Nev. 1993) (citing Haromy v. Sawyer, 654 P.2d 1022, 1023 (Nev. 1982). C 06-04435 CRB, 2007 WL 963422, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Winecup Gamble Ranch | Montello NV - Facebook ECF No. 1989) (reviewing the district court's interpretation of a contract de novo). Before the court are a total of 27 motions in limine; 21 motions filed by Union Pacific Railroad Company ("Union Pacific") (ECF Nos. Id. See Daubert, 509 U.S. at 596. ii. The ranch, in 2016, was for sale again. Accordingly, Union Pacific's first and second motions in limine are denied. ECF No. 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. ECF No. 207 ) is extended . Mediation Questionnaire. ECF No. Additionally, Plaintiff has not produced any of Mr. Worden's accounting work papers, which is relevant to Defendant's case and covered by Defendant's subpoena. Newberry v. Cty. "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." The case involved the sale of a ranch and whether $5 million in . 250,000 ACRES DEEDED LAND WITH GRAZING RIGHTS ON OVER 1,000,000 ACRES. [11762326] (JBS) [Entered: 07/22/2020 02:44 PM], U.S. Courts Of Appeals | Property | The decision on a motion in limine is consigned to the district court's discretionincluding the decision of whether to rule before trial at all. Union Pacific's fourteenth motion in limine to bar evidence or argument about consulting experts (ECF No. OWNER BELIEVES THERE MAY BE MORE THAN 100,000 ACRE FEET OF WATER. C at 6.) 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. Winecup's second and third motions in limine also relates to the standard of care to be used in this negligence case. Winecup Gamble Ranch corporate office is located in #1 Winecup Rd, Montello, Nevada, 89830, United States and has 4 employees. 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. See Wyeth v. Rowatt, 244 P.3d 765, 775 (Nev. 2010). Appellant Winecup Gamble, Inc. opening brief due 05/07/2021. Razavian's February 27, 2019 deposition (occurring approximately two years before trial) and Razavian's January 17, 2020 declaration (provided approximately one year before trial) provide his opinion regarding the mile post 670.03 washout in great detail. Second, as to the infiltration data, disagreements over data imputes are again best left to cross-examination and presentation of contrary evidence. Judgment was entered accordingly. ECF No. Both parties appeal. WINECUP GAMBLE, INC., a Nevada corporation, Plaintiff, v. GORDON RANCH, LP, a Texas limited partnership, Defendant. Outcome-based Grazing at the Winecup-Gamble Ranch 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. Finally, because Winecup has not "admitted" the facts as presented by Union Pacific, the Court will not permit Union Pacific to add the information to the "undisputed facts" section of the pretrial order. 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." Ins. 8. ECF No. 30, 2007). Date of service: 03/16/2021. 20106(a)(2). Lindon is a qualified expert in hydrology and meteorology. 3:17-CV-00163 | 2017-03-16, U.S. District Courts | Property | ECF No. ECF No. 133) is denied without prejudice. As part of the agreement, Defendant deposited a million dollars of earnest money in escrow. ECF No. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the clerk of the court shall close this case. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Union Pacific's third motion in limine to facilitate efficient management of exhibits and testimony (ECF No. To submit pertinent confidential information directly to the Circuit Mediators, please use the following # link . 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. Ranch shifts focus to soil organic matter - Hay and Forage [12048869] (BLS) [Entered: 03/22/2021 11:05 AM], Docket(#3) The Mediation Questionnaire for this case was filed on 03/16/2021. See Ringle v. Bruton, 86 P.3d 1032, 1037 (Nev. 2004) (holding that parol evidence may be considered to resolve ambiguity and determine the parties' intent). 706; Gorton v. Todd, 793 F.Supp.2d 1171, 1178 (E.D. The parties have submitted a total of 27 motions in limine. (ECF No. Alternatively, even if the regulation did preempt the state common law standard, the federal standard would apply and not preclude the defense itself. 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. 143. Because the agreement is ambiguous, we also vacate the denial of Winecup Gamble's motion for summary judgment. Additionally, the Ninth Circuit did not rule on whether Plaintiff's interpretation of the contract constituted a penalty clause. 37, 89. 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. 120. 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. Only 7 inches of precipitation is received annually. 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. 120. (citing Smiley v. Citibank (South Dakota), N.A., 517 U.S. 735, 744 n.3 (1996)). Campbell Industries v. M/V Gemini, 619 F.2d 24, 27 (9th Cir. ROBERT C. JONES United States District Judge ORDER Defendant moves for sanctions against Plaintiff alleging that its agents spoliated valuable electronically stored information (ESI). 122) is granted in part and denied in part. But Union Pacific does not point to any evidence in the record of "abandonment." (Id.) 141) is denied. Cal. Fed. And such communications took place shortly after the flood on February 21, 2017. 124) is DENIED. Jan. 31, 2013). Make your practice more effective and efficient with Casetexts legal research suite. "A corporation generally cannot present a theory of the facts that differs from that articulated by the designated Rule 30(b)(6) representative." Union Pacific Railroad Company v. Winecup Ranch, LLC et al, Elko Broadband Ltd. v. Haidermota BNR, Lawyers and Counsel with Offices in Islamadad, Islamic Republic of Pakistan et al, Vincent G. Dimaggio v. Jacqueline L. Stoever. Union Pacific's eighteenth motion in limine to bar Winecup from offering evidence or argument about preserving the Dake dam for pike (ECF No. Joe Glascock Email & Phone Number - Winecup Gam.. | ZoomInfo 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. 141-2 6. Winecup opposes this motion arguing that Ninth Circuit precedent permits a 30(b)(6) deponent that answered "I don't know" to supplement, contextualize, and even contradict such statements at trial, and that a 30(b)(6) deponent who answers "I don't know" to questions outside the scope of the 30(b)(6) notice is not penalized. Likewise, Union Pacific's other arguments go to the weight of his testimony, not admissibility, and are best left to vigorous cross examination. 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. ECF No. 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. and Nevada Administrative Code ("NAC") 535.010 et seq.do not apply to the Winecup dams. 91). Winecup's fourth motion in limine to exclude evidence and argument that Union Pacific is entitled to punitive damages (ECF No. Accordingly, Union Pacific's eighth motion in limine (ECF No.Lithgow Correctional Centre Governor, Bedford High School Basketball, Articles W