winecup gamble ranch lawsuit

The court's role is to "screen the jury from unreliable nonsense opinions, . 155. The Court assumes that the parties will follow these rules; therefore, it denies Union Pacific's fourteenth motion in limine without prejudice (ECF No. 1. ECF No. Include Ninth Circuit case number in subject line. The standard for calculating damages is an important and critical issue in this case, but it has not been fully or properly briefed by the parties: Winecup briefly noted the standard it believes is proper in its response to Union Pacific's combined fifth and sixth motion, while Union Pacific took the opportunity to argue for its standard in a 13-page reply, without any further response from Winecup. Union Pacific's twelfth motion in limine to bar evidence or argument about (A) the Oroville Dam spillway failure, or (B) weather or (C) flood conditions in watersheds west of the relevant one (ECF No. 139 at 8. 112, 2:15-22.) Alternatively, even if the regulation did preempt the state common law standard, the federal standard would apply and not preclude the defense itself. C.) However, Mr. Worden did not produce any ESI from his devices and admits that the ESI was lost from his electronic devices. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Union Pacific's tenth motion in limine requesting that the Court instruct the jury before trial about certain laws that apply to Nevada dam owners (ECF No. If the parties determine that a jury trial is necessary, the Court would expect the participating attorneys to appear in-person, but it would again leave it to each party's counsel to determine which of its witnesses would appear by video or in-person. Union Pacific filed its original complaint on August 10, 2017, against Winecup Gamble, Winecup Ranch, LLC, and Paul Fireman. Union Pacific's third motion requests that the jurors be provided with three binders of pre-admitted exhibits (containing "200 or so" exhibits) at the outset of trial. To submit pertinent confidential information directly to the Circuit Mediators, please use the following # link . 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. .." Id. Evidence is relevant if "it has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence." The Court has fully reviewed the record and considered the parties' oral argument; for the reasons below, the Court grants in part and denies in part these motions. ), Presently, Defendant moves for sanctions against Plaintiff alleging that Mr. Worden and Mr. Fireman, acting as Plaintiff's agents, spoliated the ESI. 1990). Since, the Courts finds intentionality the harsher sanctions of Fed. 149) is GRANTED. Despite Mr. Worden's prominent role with Plaintiff and with this deal in particular, Mr. Worden has not produced any ESI from his devices to Defendant. WINECUP GAMBLE, INC., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. GORDON RANCH LP, Defendant-Appellant. In Union Pacific's second motion in limine, it further asserts that Lindon incorrectly opines that no floodwater from the 23 Mile dam failure reached mile post 670.03 when it was washed out. Winecup further provides that the model is generally accepted in this scientific community and has been the subject of publications. The Court finds that whether the proffered evidence is relevant or if it would be unfairly prejudicial is best determined at trial when it can be adjudged in context. Union Pacific requests the Court bar Winecup from asking questions or offering evidence or argument about "consulting experts," pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(4)(D). 107) is GRANTED. Womack v. GEO Grp., Inc., No. R. EVID. i. 157. 160-4 at 6. 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.). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Union Pacific's sixteenth motion in limine to bar two words in an email with profane reference (ECF No. 149) is granted. Close to I-80. [12029509] (JBS) [Entered: 03/09/2021 01:23 PM], U.S. District Courts | Property | And the best part of all, documents in their CrowdSourced Library are FREE! P. 26(a)(2)(C). It is uncontested that 23 Mile dam is classified as a low hazard dam, and Dake dam as a significant hazard dam. While Winecup clearly could not have disclosed any of these experts at the initial October 2018 disclosure date (as none had yet to be deposed), Winecup could have disclosed that it intended to call Holt and Quaglieri in its November 2018 rebuttal disclosure, and could have disclosed Opperman well before May 13, 2020. Winecup Gamble Ranch. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Union Pacific's fifth and sixth motions in limine to Bar Two Opinions of Derek Godwin (ECF No. The Court generally instructs the jury preliminarily on issues related to trial procedure, the judge's duties and role, and the jurors' role and responsibilities in a civil case. 2-4. ECF No. The Judges overseeing this case are Robert C. Jones and Valerie P. Cooke. Winecup Gamble, Inc. v. Gordon Ranch LP | D. Nev. - Casemine Union Pacific requests the Court appoint a neutral expert to help the Court "understand" the scientific opinions of the parties' experts. 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. A, 47:2-6.) j***@winecupgambleranch.com. Union Pacific does not allege a claim for gross negligence, but simply makes a claim for negligence. The schedule is set as follows: Appellant Winecup Gamble, Inc. Winecup Gamble, Inc. v. Ranch | 3:17-cv-00163-ART-CSD | D. Nev (citing Beaver Valley Power Co. v. Nat'l Eng'g & Contracting Co., 883 F.2d 1210, 1221 (3d. 164. 111 at 16-17. Therefore, the Court denies Union Pacific's eleventh and nineteenth motions in limine. See Daubert, 509 U.S. at 596. ii. 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." IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all other motions are DENIED AS MOOT. 157-31; 157-32. Zubulake v. UBS Warburg LLC, 229 F.R.D. FED. Id. While Lindon may not be a meteorologist by degree, he is clearly qualified to conduct the meteorological calculations and consider those calculations in reaching his expert opinion regarding the dam failure and subsequent flooding. 111. 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. Following the Nevada Supreme Court in Thitchener, as a matter of law, a plaintiff is not entitled to pursue punitive damages on negligence claims. [12100962] [21-15415] (Jordan, David) [Entered: 05/04/2021 09:06 AM], Docket(#6) Filed order MEDIATION (SMC): This case is RELEASED from the Mediation Program. (ECF No. Under Nevada law, the question of "[w]hether or not a document is ambiguous is a question of law for the court." However, "if a regulation is a first-time interpretive regulation, application to preexisting issues may be permissible." He has "significant experience with hydrometerorology, surface water hydrology, modeling, and dam safety hydrology." Make your practice more effective and efficient with Casetexts legal research suite. 213.33 preempts Winecup from arguing that Union Pacific was contributorily negligence for maintaining culverts not sufficiently large enough to withstand a 50-year storm. Lindon's expert testimony is admissible. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Winecup's third motion in limine to exclude argument related to Union Pacific's claim for negligence per se (ECF No. 89 22-24. (ECF No. See Francis v. MSC Cruises, S.A., Case No. R. EVID. 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. [11785954] (BLS) [Entered: 08/12/2020 08:52 AM], Docket(#6) The Mediation Questionnaire for this case was filed on 07/29/2020. 16. "); 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. The Court finds that both arguments go not to Lindon's methodology, but to the data imputed. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Union Pacific's third motion in limine to facilitate efficient management of exhibits and testimony (ECF No. Mediation Questionnaire due on 03/16/2021. 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. 5. Though not addressed in Winecup's motion, Union Pacific argues that it also pleads violations of NRS 535.010 to support its negligence per se theory. The Federal Railroad Safety Act ("FRSA") was enacted "to promote safety in every area of railroad operations and reduce railroad-related accidents and incidents." Given the nature of the lost ESI, the Court finds that it must give the harshest sanction of a case dispositive ruling. 123) is denied. Importantly, the parties dispute whether the February 2017 storm was greater or less than a 100-year storm eventUnion Pacific's expert concluded that the storm event did not exceed the 100-year event, while Winecup's expert, Lindon, concluded that it did. Winecup's fourth motion in limine requests the Court exclude Union Pacific's claim of punitive damages. The Court recognizes that "[i]t is time-consuming when counsel circulate exhibits among the jurors, and it disrupts the examination of witnesses, except where the physical qualities of an object are themselves relevant." 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. 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. The provinces allowed casino games as well as horse tracks, and video lottery terminals. 3:20-CV-00293 | 2020-05-18. 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. The district court granted the motion for judgment on the pleadings, thus denying the motion for summary judgment without considering the merits of that motion; it also found that neither party was entitled to an award of attorneys' fees. 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. Ex. 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. 122) is granted in part and denied in part. Appellee Gordon Ranch LP answering brief due 07/21/2021. (Id.). Therefore, the Court finds that under Nevada state law, Winecup is not permitted to offer evidence that a non-party is comparatively negligent. 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. Furthermore, Winecup argues that "to the extent Union Pacific's testifying experts relied on information from a 'consulting' expert, that information would also be admissible," pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 705. Any further errors asserted by Union Pacific regarding Lindon's expert testimony are best left to cross-examination and presentation of contrary evidence as each goes to the weight of his testimony, not admissibility. 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. Winecup Gamble Ranch Location PO Box 249, Montello, Nevada, 89830, United States Description Industry Agriculture General Agriculture Discover more about Winecup Gamble Ranch Recent News About Erica Beck Scoops Intent Scoops about Winecup Gamble Ranch . As discussed above, Razavian's opinion the subject was first disclosed during his February 2017 deposition. The Court notes that it is open to hearing any other mutually agreeable alternative to the options suggested by the Court as this case proceeds. Id. 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 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. See Hal Roach Studios Inc. v. Richard Feiner and Co., 896 F.2d 1542, 1550 (9th Cir. This provision does not fix a standard legal duty; it is much too broad and leaves open to interpretation what work is necessary for dam owners to maintain and operate their dams safely. 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. 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. 175-1. 127) is denied without prejudice. 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]. 151. 175), are DENIED without prejudice. AnyLaw is the FREE and Friendly legal research service that gives you unlimited access to massive amounts of valuable legal data. First, Winecup argues that a plain reading of the text of NAC 535.240 shows that the applicability of the statute is limited to approval for new construction, reconstruction, or alterations, but it does not apply to dams in existence before the statute went into effect that have not been modified or altered. (#7) MEDIATION ORDER FILED: This case is RELEASED from the Mediation Program. 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. 176) is GRANTED. The Court relies on its above statements of law regarding its gatekeeper function in determining the admissibility of expert testimony and sees no reason to reiterate it here. 3. 3:19-CV-00700 | 2019-11-20. 49 U.S.C. 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."). Again, Winecup opposes, arguing that its supplemental disclosure was timely and sufficient under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2)(C). R. EVID. Winecup's second motion in limine to exclude evidence and argument that NAC section 535.240 applies to the 23 Mile and Dake dams (ECF No. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Union Pacific's twentieth motion in limine to permit Union Pacific witnesses to testify by video (ECF No. Godwin further testified that he had reviewed Union Pacific's rerouting costs and crew costs as provided, and the number of trains per day. 34 Ex. 126. P. 26(a)(2)(B)(i). 3. 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." Bard, Inc., Case No. P. 37 Advisory Committee Notes to the 2015 Amendment).

Dotwork Tattoos London, Mcgovern's Thanksgiving Menu, What Do Male Tennis Players Wear Under Their Shorts, Articles W