winecup gamble ranch lawsuit
ECF No. The parties have submitted a total of 27 motions in limine. 130) is denied without prejudice. ECF No. 2d 844, 846 (N.D. Ohio 2004). "); NAC 535.080 ("Probable maximum flood" means "a hypothetical flood whose magnitude is: 1. [11769971] (BLS) [Entered: 07/28/2020 05:05 PM], (#2) Filed (ECF) Appellant Winecup Gamble, Inc. 135) is DENIED in part and GRANTED in part. At nearly a million acres, the Winecup Gamble Ranch, a mountainous Nevada spread hard up against the Utah border, puts Rhode Island to shame. Appellant Winecup Gamble, Inc. opening brief due 05/07/2021. Union Pacific now seeks to bar Winecup and Rogers from presenting testimony that contradicts his answers to these same questions from his deposition. ECF No. 1980)). 154. (ECF No. ECF No. The Court finds that exclusion of Worden's deposition will not result in injustice to Union Pacificit is still permitted to present evidence of Winecup's financial situation through Fireman should this case reach the punitive damages phase. i. Winecup's contributory negligence defense is not preempted. 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. 36 Ex. A reasonable jury could find punitive damages are warranted if it finds that Winecup acted with conscious disregard of the downstream property owners. 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]. UniCourt uses cookies to improve your online experience, for more information please see our Privacy Policy. While ultimately whether to award punitive damages is a question for the jury, the district court must first make a "threshold determination that a defendant's conduct is subject to this form of civil punishment." 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. 128. 143) is DENIED. See Luce v. United States, 469 U.S. 38, 41 (1984). 37, 89), to which Winecup has answered (ECF No. (citation omitted). For 25 years, Lindon worked at the Utah Department of Natural Resources, Division of Water Rights, Dam Safety Section, in part, creating "hydrological models to simulate hypothetical storms and floods and re-create actual events, such as rain on snowpack events, that resulted in flooding and dam failures." 2:08-CV-01243-PMP-GWF, 2008 WL 11389168, at *5 (D. Nev. Dec. 30, 2008) ("Because punitive damages are not available for negligence claims, Plaintiffs are not entitled to pursue punitive damages for the negligence, negligent hiring, and negligent misrepresentation claims."). Accordingly, the Court grants Union Pacific's fifteenth motion in limine (ECF No. As the Court articulated above, Godwin is qualified to opine on such topics as railroad design and construction, based on his training and experience, which includes opining on the industry standard for culvert size in this context. Little pre-trial motion practice has occurred in this case other than the 27 pending motions in limine. 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. Section 213.33 "only regulates the maintenance of existing drainage;" the regulations "are otherwise silent on when additional drainage is required, what kind of drainage is appropriate, and how drainage should be installed." . Union Pacific's thirteenth motion in limine to bar evidence or argument related to an "Act of God" defense (ECF No. 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]. CV-12-1524-PHX-SRB (LOA), 2013 WL 2422691, at *3 (D. Ariz. June 3, 2013) (citations and internal quotations omitted). 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. 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. 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. Union Pacific filed its original complaint on August 10, 2017, against Winecup Gamble, Winecup Ranch, LLC, and Paul Fireman. ECF Nos. Union Pacific argues that due to the complexity of the Oroville Dam failure, evidence and argument on the topic would result in a "mini trial," and as the weather and flooding occurred outside the relevant watershed, the evidence is irrelevant. Union Pacific may add these facts to the statement of contested issues of fact and Winecup will likewise be permitted to list the facts contested. 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. (See, e.g., ECF No. See ECF Nos. at 3. By continuing to use this website, you agree to UniCourts General Disclaimer, Terms of Service, 171 at 4-5. 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. Winecup opposes this motion for two reasons: (1) because N.A.C. 18. Moreover. Only 7 inches of precipitation is received annually. (ECF No. Id. 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." To submit pertinent confidential information directly to the Circuit Mediators, please use the following # link . ECF No. 402. Winecup Gamble Ranch is part of the Agriculture industry, and located in Nevada, United States. 2015) (per curiam). This District's courtrooms are fully equipped with an electronic exhibit display system that allows each juror to view exhibits on their own personal screen. See Wyeth v. Rowatt, 244 P.3d 765, 775 (Nev. 2010). 160-3 at 44. 3:17-CV-00163 | 2017-03-16, U.S. District Courts | Property | [12101491] (DLM) [Entered: 05/04/2021 12:13 PM], (#7) Filed (ECF) Streamlined request for extension of time to file Opening Brief by Appellant Winecup Gamble, Inc.. New requested due date is 06/21/2021. [12029509] (JBS) [Entered: 03/09/2021 01:23 PM], U.S. District Courts | Property | Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2)(A) provides: "a party must disclose to the other parties the identity of any witness it may use at trial to present evidence under Federal Rules of Evidence 702, 703, or 705." Though the Winecup Gamble does not cover 3 million acres anymore, it is still a large ranch operating on about 1,000,000 acres of the original ranch running Brangus and Angus cattle bred to Herefords. Story continues below advertisement. Union Pacific's late disclosure regarding Razavian's opinion on the washout at mile post 670.03, while untimely, is harmless and Razavian's opinions on the subject are admissible. The Federal Railroad Safety Act ("FRSA") was enacted "to promote safety in every area of railroad operations and reduce railroad-related accidents and incidents." 9. [12100962] [21-15415] (Jordan, David) [Entered: 05/04/2021 09:06 AM], (#3) The Mediation Questionnaire for this case was filed on 03/16/2021. UniCourt uses cookies to improve your online experience, for more information please see our Privacy Policy. 112, 2:15-22.) The Court agrees with this case and holds that the 2015 amendment did not lessen Plaintiff's burden. Today, the trust and relationships built through ROGER have helped create a working group that is focused on one of the pilot ranches participating in the BLM's Outcome-Based Grazing Authorizations (OBGA) program taking place on the Winecup-Gamble Ranch outside of Wells, Nevada. See Tennison v. Circus Circus Enterprises, Inc., 244 F.3d 684, 690 (9th Cir. Winecup Gamble Ranch Global Presence. 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. 143. And, "[u]nless otherwise stipulated or ordered by the court, this disclosure must be accompanied by a written report--prepared and signed by the witness--if the witness is one retained or specially employed to provide expert testimony in the case or one whose duties as the party's employee regularly involve giving expert testimony." ECF No. 154-2 at 5. And there can be no dispute that Godwin's opinion is relevant and advances a material aspect of Winecup's case: Godwin's opinion goes directly to whether Union Pacific was contributorily negligent for the damaged tracks. 7. 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. In April 2018, the parties deposed Holt and Quaglieri, and in April 2019, the parties deposed Opperman. (citing Beaver Valley Power Co. v. Nat'l Eng'g & Contracting Co., 883 F.2d 1210, 1221 (3d. 139-4 at 4. i. 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. FED. 1993) (internal quotation marks omitted), overruled on other grounds by United States v. Nordby, 225 F.3d 1053 (9th Cir. 195), and rules on all now pending. The Offering Included All Owned Deeded Land, All Water Rights, Transfer of a Private-Use Year 'Round BLM Permit for 52,000 AUMs Plus All Machinery & Equipment. See ECF No. 123) is denied. Winecup-Gamble Ranch for sale Jump to page : 1 Now viewing page 1 [50 messages per page] View previous thread:: View next thread Forums List-> Stock Talk: Message format . Northeast corner of Nevada bordering Utah. Because the district court has now twice erroneously issued pretrial orders terminating the case, see Winecup Gamble, Inc. v. Gordon Ranch LP, 747 F. App'x 632, 633 (9th Cir. ECF No. 108 at 11. Mediation Questionnaire due on 03/16/2021. 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. ECF No. Cases involving other real property matters not classified elsewhere, (#8) Streamlined request [7] by Appellant Winecup Gamble, Inc. to extend time to file the brief is approved.
Elin Michaels Age,
Snapple Apple Discontinued,
Articles W