winecup gamble ranch lawsuit

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. 706; Gorton v. Todd, 793 F.Supp.2d 1171, 1178 (E.D. 160-3 at 77. 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.[12043697]. The parties are encouraged and permitted to file a stipulation requesting pre-admittance of any uncontested exhibits. However, the Advisory Committee Notes make clear that the 2015 amendment forecloses a court from imposing sanctions for spoliation of ESI under that basis. 111-7 35-42. Union Pacific's motion in limine to amend the Pretrial Order (ECF No. Winecup concedes that an accepted methodology includes using topographical survey data to determine if it is possible for water to escape one drainage and enter another. That means, under Nevada law, punitive damages proceedings are bifurcated. The Court finds that multiple exhibit binders each with a few hundred exhibits is impractical and unnecessary given the electronics available in the courtroom. Union Pacific concedes that Lindon is a qualified expert in hydrology. 207 ) is extended . 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 enters such a sanction and closes the case. Winecup objects to the presentation of exhibit binders arguing that doing so would require the court to rule on the admissibility of all contested exhibits prior to trial, and that given the number of exhibits, juror binders are "impractical, burdensome, and awkward." 157-31; 157-32. 157-2 at 66; 157-28. 164. 111) and its second motion in limine to exclude hydrological opinions of Matthew Lindon and to appoint a neutral expert (ECF No. 157-31; 157-32. 14. "A contract is ambiguous if it is reasonably susceptible to more than one interpretation." [11762326] (JBS) [Entered: 07/22/2020 02:44 PM], U.S. Courts Of Appeals | Property | Accordingly, Union Pacific's motion (ECF No. Id. 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. 130. 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). Id. Research the case of Winecup Gamble, Inc. v. Gordon Ranch LP, from the D. Nevada, 03-17-2022. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Union Pacific's fifteenth motion in limine to bar one paragraph in an email referencing contract truck driver incidents (ECF No. 1. 7. 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. 2. 34 Ex. ECF No. Zubulake v. UBS Warburg LLC, 229 F.R.D. (ECF No. See Wyeth v. Rowatt, 244 P.3d 765, 775 (Nev. 2010). Moore-Brown v. City of North Las Vegas Police Dep't, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2)(A), Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2)(C), Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(4)(D), Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 705 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. 150) is denied without prejudice. [21-15415] (AD) [Entered: 03/16/2021 06:44 PM], (#1) DOCKETED CAUSE AND ENTERED APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL. Judgment on the pleadings should not have been granted, because the ambiguity described above and the dispute over the parties' intent when they amended their agreement presents a disputed issue of material fact. 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. Given the nature of the lost ESI, the Court finds that it must give the harshest sanction of a case dispositive ruling. 405, 406 (W.D. 107 Ex. 133) is DENIED without prejudice. 3:20-CV-00293 | 2020-05-18. [11785954] (BLS) [Entered: 08/12/2020 08:52 AM], (#5) Filed (ECF) Appellee Gordon Ranch LP Mediation Questionnaire. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 32(a)(8), the deposition from an earlier action "may be used in a later action involving the same subject matter between the same parties." Winecup motions the Court exclude the opinions and testimony of Union Pacific's hydrology expert, Daryoush Razavian, regarding the washout at mile post 670.030. Union Pacific's eighteenth motion in limine to bar Winecup from offering evidence or argument about preserving the Dake dam for pike (ECF No. In the alternative, Defendant further requests that the Court prevent Plaintiff from relying on any evidence or testimony from Mr. Worden or give the jury an instruction that the deleted evidence is adverse to Plaintiff's claims and defenses. Applying this test, the Court finds that Defendant has satisfied its burden. AnyLaw is the FREE and Friendly legal research service that gives you unlimited access to massive amounts of valuable legal data. ECF No. 120-3. 2014) (quoting Primiano, 598 F.3d at 564). 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. 166. 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. 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. Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief. at 4. (ECF No. 127). Id. The Court notes Winecup raises such a specific argument in its second motion in liminewhether Winecup can argue that NAC 535.240 does not apply to its damswhich the Court addresses below. 152) is granted in part and denied in part. (Id. 158 at 2. Accordingly, Union Pacific's eighth motion in limine (ECF No. (Id. The optional reply brief is due 21 days from the date of service of the answering brief. Union Pacific motions the Court to exclude both Winecup's contributory negligence defense and Godwin's expert opinions that relate to this defense. See ECF No. 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. However, "if a regulation is a first-time interpretive regulation, application to preexisting issues may be permissible." Paul Fireman was Winecup's sole shareholder and was initially a named party in the suit. 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." ///. 141) is denied. Union Pacific's thirteenth motion in limine to bar evidence or argument related to an "Act of God" defense (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. 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. /// ///, ii. The case status is Pending - Other Pending. 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. This statute, titled Construction, reconstruction or alteration of dam: Permit to appropriate water required; notice; approval of plans and specifications; inspection; exemptions; penalty, provides: Union Pacific further argues that Winecup "abandoned" the Dake dam which constitutes an "alteration" within the meaning of NRS 535.010 and required Winecup to submit a plan for approval, which it failed to do. Id. 139) is denied. 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. Further, while Winecup argues that Razavian's observations were "superficial," Winecup has given the Court no reason to discount Razavian's opinion that considering the "empirical data" he observed in the area of a flood is an unacceptable methodology for determining the flow of a flood. See ECF Nos. 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." 17. 112.) Id. 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. 130) is denied without prejudice. 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. Godwin's opinions on pre-flood design structures are admissible. Winecup may submit a response to Union Pacific's reply regarding the standard to be used for damages, within 14 days of the filing of this Order. Id. Plaintiff declined to repair the property. Union Pacific filed its original complaint on August 10, 2017, against Winecup Gamble, Winecup Ranch, LLC, and Paul Fireman. 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. 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. 160-2. at 5. 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. On the other hand, harsher sanctions are available if the moving party shows that the nonmoving party acted with the intent to deprive the moving party of the information's use in the litigation, then the Court may (1) presume that the lost information was unfavorable to the party, (2) instruct the jury that it may or must presume the information was unfavorable to the party, or (3) dismiss the action or enter a default judgment. 176) is GRANTED. Mediation Questionnaire due on 03/16/2021. Id. 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. Therefore, while the email itself is not hearsay, the at-issue statements contained within it are, and an applicable hearsay exception is needed for them to be admissible. ON-SITE RAIL SPUR AND 2 LANDING STRIPS. Winecup argues this would apply to all of Union Pacific's witnesses. Fla. 2018) ("[T]he issue of whether there was a force majeure or Act of God that caused the incident is an issue of fact, which cannot be decided on a motion to strike."). Motions in limine should not be used to resolve factual disputes or to weigh evidence, and evidence should not be excluded prior to trial unless the "evidence is clearly inadmissible on all potential grounds." 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 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. See Ambrosini v. Labarraque, 101 F.3d 129, 141 (D.C. Cir. Include Ninth Circuit case number in subject line. The Court has "broad discretion to make discovery and evidentiary rulings conducive to the conduct of a fair and orderly trial," which includes "the power to exclude or admit expert testimony, and to exclude testimony of witnesses whose use at trial is in bad faith or would unfairly prejudice an opposing party." 31). Union Pacific has twice amended its complaint (ECF Nos. The Court finds that NAC 535.240 is not a "first-time" interpretive regulation. The Court therefore denies Winecup's fifth motion in limine without prejudice and reserves ruling on such evidence until it can be adjudged in the context of trial. 2d 844, 846 (N.D. Ohio 2004). 3:19-CV-00700 | 2019-11-20. ECF No. See Tennison v. Circus Circus Enterprises, Inc., 244 F.3d 684, 690 (9th Cir. 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." FED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. Appellant Winecup Gamble, Inc. opening brief due 10/30/2020. "A corporation generally cannot present a theory of the facts that differs from that articulated by the designated Rule 30(b)(6) representative."

One Of The Medical Assistant's Responsibilities Is Verifying Eligibility, Florida Tomato Conference 2022, Michael Miebach Germany, Articles W