winecup gamble ranch lawsuit

The schedule is set as follows: Appellant Winecup Gamble, Inc. 2001); United States v. Layton, 767 F.2d 549, 556 (9th Cir. R. Civ. While Union Pacific pleads that it "may rely on additional statutes and administrative codes that may become known to be applicable in the future," it does not list any Nevada Revised Statute that would provide the basis for its negligence per se claim. See ECF No. 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. The provinces allowed casino games as well as horse tracks, and video lottery terminals. Winecup opposes this motion for two reasons: (1) because N.A.C. The high desert of northeastern Nevada poses unique environmental challenges for producers growing forages. 157-24, 157-28. 111 & 112. 3. Research the case of Winecup Gamble, Inc. v. Gordon Ranch LP, from the D. Nevada, 03-16-2022. 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." 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. Union Pacific's twentieth motion in limine to permit Union Pacific's witnesses to testify by video (ECF No. Thus, these regulations are not interpretive, but legislative and should not apply retroactively. ECF No. Moreover, the Court finds that it would be illogical that a plaintiff would not be preempted from suing Union Pacific under a negligence theory for failure to maintain appropriate drainage, but that a defendant would not be able to assert an affirmative defense of contributory negligence for the same alleged failure. 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. Haystax: Posted 10/3/2016 21:32 (#5562551) Subject: Winecup-Gamble Ranch for sale: DV, NV: Thought you guys might like to see what one of the best ranches in the world looks . The Court finds that the agents did intentionally spoliate ESI vital to the issues of this case, which resulted in prejudice that can only be cured through dispositive rulings in Defendant's favor. Id. 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 the amount of damages Union Pacific should be permitted to recover if the jury reaches the issue. 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 . "A contract is ambiguous if it is reasonably susceptible to more than one interpretation." 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. 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. 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. See Sprint/United Mgmt. In that case, participating attorneys would appear in-person, and the Court would leave it to each party's counsel to determine which of its witnesses would appear by video or in-person. Date of service: 03/16/2021. [20-16411] (AD) [Entered: 07/29/2020 06:44 PM], (#4) The Mediation Questionnaire for this case was filed on 07/28/2020. Godwin testified at his deposition that he was familiar with what railroads need to consider when addressing rerouting, including which tracks were in service, crew variability, how many crews they have on standby, how many trains are running per day. 130) is denied without prejudice. ECF No. 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.). 134) is DENIED without prejudice. 7125918, at *24 (D. Nev. Dec. 4,, Full title:UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY, a Delaware corporation, Plaintiff, v, Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA. . The firm also values strong cooperating relationships with reputable land brokers in the profession. The Largest that could be expected from the most severe combination of critical meteorological and hydrological conditions that are reasonably possible for the region in which the dam is located; and 2. Godwin provides two opinions regarding rerouting costs: (1) "[a]ll train traffic should have been re-routed from (or near) Tecoma to (or near) Lucin on the No.2 track;" and (2) that other washouts, not attributable to Winecup, prevented trains from moving, and therefore, Winecup is not responsible for those rerouting costs. 107 Ex. 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 motions the Court to exclude Winecup's expert, Matthew Lindon, from providing opinions on meteorological and hydrological issues. 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." 171 at 4-5. The parties agree that Nevada law governs the interpretation of their contract. (ECF No. 150. Pyramid Techs., Inc. v. Hartford Cas. 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. "); Shamnoski v. PG Energy, 579 Pa. 652, 671 (Pa. 2004) (reasoning that for a negligence per se holding, "the statute at issue would have to be so specific as to leave little question that a person or entity found in violation of it deviated from a reasonable standard of care." 36 Ex. Id. Defendant moves for sanctions against Plaintiff alleging that its agents spoliated valuable electronically stored information (ESI). B, 22:14-21.) 126) is DENIED. The amendment uses broad categorical language that purportedly made the earnest money non-refundable in almost all circumstances. in conjunction with its third motion in limine, Union Pacific motions this Court to pre-admit a number of exhibits (approximately 167) that would go in the requested juror binders. 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]. 112. ECF No. Union Pacific's motion in limine to amend the Pretrial Order (ECF No. 141) is denied. 130. ), After remand, the parties reinitiated discovery. The Court will not appoint a neutral expert. 129. ECF No. (ECF No. [11762326] (JBS) [Entered: 07/22/2020 02:44 PM]. 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. ECF No. The case status is Pending - Other Pending. 160-3 at 77. SEND MQ: Yes. The Court agrees with this case and holds that the 2015 amendment did not lessen Plaintiff's burden. 107, Ex. Accordingly, the Court denies Union Pacific's seventh motion in limine. From a plain reading of this Rule, it is clear to the Court that a written expert report is only required if the expert is retained. 89 1. . 160-3 at 44. "A motion in limine is used to preclude prejudicial or objectionable evidence before it is presented to the jury." 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. Research the case of Winecup Gamble, Inc. v. Gordon Ranch LP, from the D. Nevada, 03-17-2022. Contact. Appellant Winecup Gamble, Inc. opening brief due 10/30/2020. Godwin declares that he has extensive experience in railroad construction and design, and specializes in "railroad engineering, railroad construction engineering, filed supervision, damage mitigation, working in hurricane, flood, and other emergency situations, and rebuilding railroads to restore service as quickly and efficiently as possible." 134. Here, there can be no dispute that the parties are not the same and the subject matter is differentthis is a negligence action while Gordon Ranch was a contract dispute. Union Pacific's fifteenth motion in limine to bar one paragraph in email referencing contract truck driver incidents (ECF No. Counsel are requested to contact the Circuit Mediator should circumstances develop that warrant settlement discussions while the appeal is pending. While Plaintiff claims that it orally informed Mr. Worden to preserve ESI, this is woefully inadequate as discussed above, but evinces that Plaintiff and Mr. Worden knew they had a duty to preserve the ESI. Gallo v. Union Pacific R.R. 37, 89. Godwin's opinions on pre-flood design structures are admissible. 3.) Id. However, the Advisory Committee Notes make clear that the 2015 amendment forecloses a court from imposing sanctions for spoliation of ESI under that basis. Union Pacific does not argue that this modeling program is improper or not the industry standard model. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Winecup's fourth motion in limine to exclude evidence and argument that Union Pacific is entitled to punitive damages (ECF No. It also helps that the Winecup Gamble has so many pastures to choose from. 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. By continuing to use this website, you agree to UniCourts General Disclaimer, Terms of Service, 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. This is the subject of Winecup's first motion in limine; therefore, Union Pacific's arguments will be addressed below. Moore et al., Moore's Federal Practice 30.25[3] (3d ed. . 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. Union Pacific argues that doing so would enable a smooth presentation of exhibits to the jury. at 43:14-25), upgrading to a new computer during this time (Id. Id. ECF Nos. 151) is denied without prejudice. 9. 164. 141. 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. Godwin testified that the RS Means methodology is the "industry standard" for estimating construction costs. 163. However, Plaintiff did nothing more than orally inform their chief negotiator and accountant to preserve the ESI, and Mr. Worden allowed his computer to be upgraded without backing up his information and did not suspend his company's aggressive deletion policy and backup settings to accommodate his duty to preserve evidence. P. 37(c)(1). 3. Mediation Questionnaire. 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. Union Pacific requests the Court bar Winecup from admitting a paragraph of an email from a Union Pacific employee discussing traffic incidents with a Nevada Department of Transportation employee. Again, the Court agrees with Winecup: the Court cannot make a ruling on whether judicial notice is proper without sufficient information. 2:19-CV-00414 | 2019-06-17, U.S. District Courts | Contract | 1996), as amended (Jan. 15, 1997) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 132) on hearsay grounds. 143) is denied. Union Pacific's combined fifth and sixth motion in limine pertains to Godwin's second and third opinions and argues that Godwin is not only unqualified to render opinions on these issues, but has insufficient factual knowledge and lacks any methodology to reach these opinions. 124) is DENIED. Accordingly, the Court grants Union Pacific's eighteenth motion in limine as it relates to the cited email and denies it without prejudice as it relates to the subject as a whole. 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." Plaintiff admitted that Mr. Worden was the principal negotiator in forming the deal resulting in some text messages between him and Mr. Fireman. While these regulations do not provide the standard of care, evidence and argument related to NAC 532.240 may be presented to support a standard of care under the reasonable person standard. 111 at 16-17. Get free access to the complete judgment in Winecup Gamble, Inc. v. Ranch on CaseMine. [12077160] (AF) [Entered: 04/16/2021 11:36 AM], (#5) MEDIATION CONFERENCE RESCHEDULED - DIAL-IN Assessment Conference, 04/14/2021, 9:30 a.m. Pacific Time (originally scheduled on 03/31/2021).

Bitcoin Rodney Net Worth, Articles W