), The Court ruled in favor of Defendant as a matter of law finding that the contract was unambiguous in its favor. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that 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. Lindon's opinion on the subject remained the same in this disclosure as it was in his prior report. This model is "industry standard used by the Army Corps of Engineers . Winecup's expert, Matthew Lindon, disagrees and opines that the washout was caused by water from the Loray Wash and that floodwater from the 23 Mile dam could not have caused that track washout because the timing evidence shows that water from 23 Mile dam could not have reached mile post 670.03 at the time it was washed out. 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. Casetext, Inc. and Casetext are not a law firm and do not provide legal advice. 20106(a)(2). And the best part of all, documents in their CrowdSourced Library are FREE! 2:19-CV-00414 | 2019-06-17, U.S. District Courts | Contract | Case Summary. 120-2 at 5 ("HEC-HMS and HEC-RAS are probably the most extensively applied water-related modeling systems in the world. ECF No. Winecup opposes the motion, arguing that it is permitted to argue and offer evidence that they are either not negligent or that another party is completely negligent. 168 at 2. 1986) (citing Georgia-Pacific Corp. v. U.S., 640 F.2d 328, 334 (Ct. Cl. A 44:19-45:1.) The Court heard selected oral argument on four of these motions on June 25, 2020 (ECF No. Accordingly, Union Pacific's motion (ECF No. 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. B at 23:14-21.) [21-15415] (AD) [Entered: 03/16/2021 06:44 PM], Docket(#2) Filed (ECF) Appellant Winecup Gamble, Inc. It's about 100 miles from Elko, Nev . 120-3. 3. 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. The schedule is set as follows: Appellant Winecup Gamble, Inc. And emails by a party's agent or employee, when a proper foundation is laid, that shows the statements were made within the scope of employment, may constitute opposing party statements. 1989)). C at 6.) Winecup Gamble Ranch - 42 North Land Co. Here, culverts and earthen embankments existed at the washed-out track locations. Union Pacific does not argue that this modeling program is improper or not the industry standard model. The Court directs readers to Part III.B.2-3 below for a larger discussion on this issue, as it is related but not entirely on point to Union Pacific's tenth motion in limine. Winecup may motion the Court to reconsider this determination based on the evidence presented at trial. Union Pacific Railroad Company v. Winecup Ranch, LLC et al However, Winecup argues that they should be permitted to ask questions about any expert or employee hired by the plaintiff that was not "in anticipation of litigation or to prepare for trial." (ECF No. Winecup Gamble, Inc. v. Gordon Ranch LP | D. Nevada | 03-01-2023 | www 3:21-CV-00226 | 2021-05-14, U.S. District Courts | Contract | 4 (Letter between counsel noting a telephone conversation on February 21, 2017 between counsel discussing their legal positions).) (ECF No. ECF No. Union Pacific's arguments on exclusion go to the weight of Lindon's testimony, not its admissibility, and are best left to cross examination and testimony by its own expert. Based on these classifications, Union Pacific argues that pursuant to NAC 535.240, Winecup was required to "construct, operate, and maintain," the 23 Mile dam to withstand a 100-year flood event, and the Dake dam to withstand a 1000-year flood event. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Union Pacific's eighth motion in limine to bar evidence or argument that a non-party is comparatively negligent (ECF No. But the expert may be required to disclose those facts or data on cross-examination." See General Order 2020-03. The provinces allowed casino games as well as horse tracks, and video lottery terminals. Specifically, Winecup argues that this administrative regulation only provides the design standard for new construction of dams, not a standard of care for existing dam owners, and even if it did set forth a standard of care, the regulation cannot be applied retroactively to Winecup's dams because both were constructed prior to March 15, 1951. (ECF No. If you do not agree with these terms, then do not use our website and/or services. 422 (S.D.N.Y. Id. 125) is granted in part and denied in part. Judgment was entered accordingly. Cir. Zubulake v. UBS Warburg LLC, 229 F.R.D. 160-4 at 26. 3:17-CV-00163 | 2017-03-16, U.S. District Courts | Property | NRS 42.001(1)-(4). Union Pacific does not argue that the considerations Godwin looked at, including tracks in service, crew variability, and trains per day, are not to be considered in reaching such a conclusion on rerouting costsits own expert Stephen Dolezal considered characteristics for available tracks, which included run time between the end points of damaged tracks, track speeds, expected train sizes, and siding and auxiliary track availability. He has "significant experience with hydrometerorology, surface water hydrology, modeling, and dam safety hydrology." 170. Id. The Court finds that because this case has not been set for trial, this amendment to the pretrial order will not inconvenience the Court and does not prejudice either party. 123. Lastly, Union Pacific motions the Court to amend the pretrial order (ECF No. Gordon Ranch LP v Winecup Gamble Inc | 3:17-CV-00157 | Court Records 2:19-CV-00414 | 2019-06-17, U.S. District Courts | Contract | 149) is GRANTED. A, 47:2-6.) Conversely, Clay Worden was never an employee of Winecup, and testified in Gordon Ranch in his individual capacity, not as a corporate witness or agent of Winecup. ECF No. 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. Union Pacific filed its original complaint on August 10, 2017, against Winecup Gamble, Winecup Ranch, LLC, and Paul Fireman. 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. ECF No. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA. Accordingly, the Union Pacific's fourth motion in limine to pre-admit exhibits for use in juror binders (ECF No. ECF No. See Madrigal v Treasure Island Corp., Case No. ECF No. Ex. Paul Fireman's Nevada Ranch Lists for $50 Million - WSJ 2:12-cv-01727-APG-NJK, 2014 WL 12646048, at *2 (D. Nev. May 28, 2014). 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. The schedule is set as follows: Appellant Winecup Gamble, Inc. 139) is denied. 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." 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. 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. [12029509] (JBS) [Entered: 03/09/2021 01:23 PM]. And Union Pacific and Razavian have had this supplemental disclosure since July 12, 2019. The trend, however, did not spread to the rest of the 10 provinces. Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief. 150) is DENIED without prejudice. 160. i. Godwin's a qualified expert in railroad rerouting, costs, and railroad construction and design. ECF No. 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. Winecup opposes. FED. See ECF No. 166. 150. Winecup Gamble Ranch | Montello NV - Facebook 175), are DENIED without prejudice. On 07/22/2020 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. The language of the amendment does not specifically state that this result was desired or intended, and, in the absence of such a clear statement of the parties' intent, we find that the parties' agreement is ambiguous in this particular respect. 89. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(4)(D), a party may not discover "by interrogatories or deposition . 167. Plaintiff advocated for and successfully obtained a remand from the Ninth Circuit instructing this Court to comb through the parol evidence to determine the intent of the parties regarding the objective interpretation of the contractthe very information that its primary negotiator ought to possess. The parties have submitted a total of 27 motions in limine. 37, 89. The Court will address each argument in turn. 3:20-CV-00029 | 2020-01-15, U.S. District Courts | Contract | R.R. 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. 176) is GRANTED. AnyLaw is the FREE and Friendly legal research service that gives you unlimited access to massive amounts of valuable legal data. 162. ECF No. Winecup opposes this motion for two reasons: (1) because N.A.C. 1989) (reviewing the district court's interpretation of a contract de novo). 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. 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. Cattle ranch located in Northeastern Nevada, where our goal is to provide a healthy and wholesome be Winecup Gamble Ranch | Montello NV On 03/13/2017 Gordon Ranch LP filed a Property - Other Real Property lawsuit against Winecup Gamble Inc.This case was filed in U.S. District Courts, Nevada District. 141. Applying this test, the Court finds that Defendant has satisfied its burden. However, Union Pacific may present this evidence only in the secondary proceeding to determine the amount of punitive damages, should the case reach this proceeding. Third, some of the lost ESI is not attainable through additional discovery. Winecup does not dispute that some of Nevada's dam statutes and regulations apply to its 23 Mile and Dake dams; however, it argues that a blanket ruling that it can't argue that any of these regulations or statutes do not apply is overbroad and contrary to a plain reading of many of the sections. 3:17-cv-00477-LRH-CLB (D. Nev. Dec. 4, 2020). R. EVID. See ECF No. Winecup's late Supplemental Third Disclosure regarding Lindon's rebuttal opinion on the washout at mile post 670.03, while untimely, is harmless, and Lindon's opinions are admissible. ECF Nos. Winecup opposes. 154. Ins. ECF No. Generally, all relevant evidence is admissible. SMITH, Circuit Judges, and OLGUIN, District Judge. Why is this public record being published online? 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. 91). Id. (ECF No. Section 213.33 provides: "Each drainage or other water carrying facility under or immediately adjacent to the roadbed shall be maintained and kept free of obstruction, to accommodate expected water flow for the area concerned." Gamble Ranch - Straddling the Wyoming & Utah Border 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]. The Court finds that allowing Union Pacific to amend the pretrial order on this issue will not result in injustice to Winecup and any inconvenience to the Court is slight. See Daubert, 509 U.S. at 596. ii. "A contract is ambiguous if it is reasonably susceptible to more than one interpretation." Accordingly, Union Pacific's first and second motions in limine are denied. 3. 122 at 3. Union Pacific rebuilt these areas with steel bridges instead of rebuilding the embankments and culverts. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. 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. P. 26(a)(2)(C). As of December 2015, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(e) provides the specificand onlybasis for sanctions for spoliation of ESI, which was substantially amended to accommodate advances in technology and provide uniformity among the circuits. 131) is denied without prejudice. at 5. (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. A reasonable party would have foreseen litigation on the horizon as soon as the parties began exchanging communications expressing their competing interpretations of the contract and the amendment. 141, 143, 149, 150, 151, 152). 120. 129) is DENIED without prejudice. Co. v. Colorado Cas. (ECF No. Transcript ordered by 08/21/2020. Appellee Gordon Ranch LP answering brief due 06/07/2021. Union Pacific seeks to exclude Lindon's criticisms of its hydrology expert, Daryoush Razavian, regarding soil saturation. 7. 112, 2:15-22.) Ins. Id. [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. Of Clark v. LB Props., Inc., 315 P.3d 294, 296 (Nev. 2013) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Winecup Gamble, Inc. v. Gordon Ranch LP - UniCourt 134. Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief. See, e.g., Mallard Bay Drilling, Inc. v. Bessard, 145 F.R.D. ECF No. Additionally, Union Pacific does not object to Winecup providing jurors with their own binders. Under Federal Rule of Evidence 702, a witness may be qualified as an expert based on his or her knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education. Given these facts, a jury could reasonably find that a failure to complete safety measures as directed by the DWR over approximately 20 years constituted conscious disregard. (Id. Nor has Union Pacific pointed to anything in the record to support that the State Engineer has considered legal action against Winecup under this statute for a violation due to abandonment of the Dake. winecup gamble ranch. The record indicates that this dam is also known as 21 Mile dam. Ind. However, each regulation was enacted under the authority of NRS 532.120, which confers upon the State Engineer the power to make such rules and regulations as may be necessary for the proper and orderly execution of its powers. Accordingly, the late disclosure was harmless, and Lindon will be permitted to testify on the subject. Make your practice more effective and efficient with Casetexts legal research suite. Union Pacific now seeks to bar Winecup and Rogers from presenting testimony that contradicts his answers to these same questions from his deposition. Mar. The Court finds that NAC 535.240 is not a "first-time" interpretive regulation. Appellee Gordon Ranch LP answering brief due 06/07/2021. A at 14.) 195), and rules on all now pending. ECF No. 89 1. On October 15, 2018, the parties exchanged initial disclosures of expert witnesses: the plaintiff disclosed three experts with reports, and five experts without reports, and defendant disclosed two experts with reports. FED. For clarity, the Court address the parties' competing motions for exclusion together here. Id. Following the Nevada Supreme Court in Thitchener, as a matter of law, a plaintiff is not entitled to pursue punitive damages on negligence claims. /// /// ///. WINECUP GAMBLE, INC., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. GORDON RANCH LP, Defendant-Appellant. Paul Fireman was Winecup's sole shareholder and was initially a named party in the suit. iv. And the best part of all, documents in their CrowdSourced Library are FREE! R. Civ. Winecup Gamble Ranch - No Longer Available - Bates Land Consortium Mediation Questionnaire. Appellee Gordon Ranch LP answering brief due 11/30/2020. Accordingly, the Court denies Union Pacific's seventh motion in limine. 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. 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 existing briefing schedule remains in effect. 111 & 112. To submit pertinent confidential information directly to the Circuit Mediators, please use the following # link . Prior to the flood, there were earthen embankments and culverts at the washout locations. 9. 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. ECF No. /// ///, ii. 2:19-CV-00520 | 2019-07-23, U.S. District Courts | Personal Injury | United States v. Baker, 10 F.3d 1374, 1403 (9th Cir. i. 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. at 48:8-13), and that he told his IT department to preserve the relevant ESI (Id. ECF No. (ECF No. 154-2 at 5. It also helps that the Winecup Gamble has so many pastures to choose from. [11770779] [20-16411] (Lundvall, Pat) [Entered: 07/29/2020 01:50 PM], (#3) MEDIATION ORDER FILED: By 08/11/2020, counsel to email Circuit Mediator regarding settlement potential. Plaintiff admitted that Mr. Worden was the principal negotiator in forming the deal resulting in some text messages between him and Mr. Fireman. Finally, one place to get all the court documents we need. Lindon declared that he checked and calibrated the model ultimately determining with a "high degree of confidence that the model accurately reflects" the February 2017 flood event. prescribes a regulation or issues an order covering the subject matter of the State requirement." According to ZoomInfo records, James Rogers's professional experience began in 2015. See ECF No. 128), and Union Pacific's related nineteenth motion in limine to preclude experts disclosed on May 13, 2020 (ECF No. Winecup motions the Court to exclude Union Pacific from arguing or presenting evidence that NAC 535.240 applies to the 23 Mile or Dake dams. 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)). 1993) (finding that because the parties retained their own qualified experts, the appointment of a neutral expert was "not likely to enlighten or enhance the ability of the Court to determine the pending issue."). 126) for a blanket ruling is denied. Make your practice more effective and efficient with Casetexts legal research suite. Accordingly, the Court enters such a sanction and closes the case. The Court agrees with the Gallo Court's interpretation of the FRSA and the applicability of preemption in the negligence context. Additionally, in Mr. Fireman's deposition, he said that he spoke to Mr. Worden about the contract and amendment through personal meetings, telephone calls, text messages, and emails. . (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. ECF Nos. v. Reyes, Case No. Winecup Gamble, Inc. v. Ranch - casetext.com . . Date of service: 03/16/2021. Winecup further argues that Razavian fails to offer an opinion that floodwater from the 23 Mile dam caused the washout at mile post 670.03. ECF No. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Union Pacific's seventeenth motion in limine to bar Winecup from providing trial testimony that contradicts its Rule 30(b)(6) witness's deposition testimony (ECF No. Cal. 122) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part in accordance with this Order. Snapp v. United Transportation Union, 889 F.3d 1088, 1103 (9th Cir. The lawsuit would cover athletes who were training and competing between 2010 and 2020, and seeks compensation of $250,000 for punitive damages, as well as moral damages in the amount of $12,000 . Paul Fireman, Winecup Gamble, Inc. and Winecup Ranch, LLC: Case Number: 3:2017cv00477: Filed: August 10, 2017: Court: US District Court for the District of Nevada: Office: Reno Office: . . ; ECF No. 157-2 at 66; 157-28. Id. Winecup Gamble Ranch corporate office is located in #1 Winecup Rd, Montello, Nevada, 89830, United States and has 4 employees. (See, e.g., ECF No. 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. 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.

Tyler Dooley Obituary, Cook County Hospital Residency, Houston Rockets 2022 Draft Picks, You Take A Line And I'll Take A Pole, Articles W