winecup gamble ranch lawsuit

While Union Pacific argues that these witnesses may not be qualified to offer opinion testimony, the Court reserves ruling on specific testimony for trial. And courts are hesitant to appoint a neutral expert when parties have retained their own qualified experts. 112) are denied. ECF No. 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. Generally, all relevant evidence is admissible. Moreover. 122) is granted in part and denied in part. Appellant Winecup Gamble, Inc. opening brief due 10/30/2020. 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. 30, 2007). 150) is DENIED without prejudice. 167. Applying this test, the Court finds that Defendant has satisfied its burden. 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. 132. (ECF No. "A corporation generally cannot present a theory of the facts that differs from that articulated by the designated Rule 30(b)(6) representative." 2019). With this expeditious timeframe, Defendant has shown that the ESI was deleted after the duty arose to preserve the ESI. Daubert, 509 U.S. at 592-94. 89 16, 32, 50; ECF No. /// /// ///. 1398, 1400 (N.D. Ill. 1993) (noting that a court may wait to resolve the evidentiary issues at trial, where the evidence can be viewed in its "proper context"). [12101491] (DLM) [Entered: 05/04/2021 12:13 PM], Docket(#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. Only 7 inches of precipitation is received annually. ECF No. Winecup opposes, arguing that the proposed instructions are improper standard of care instructions for a negligence case, the proposed list is biased in favor of Union Pacific, and if the Court is inclined to give such instructions, then it should also preliminarily instruct the jury as to all elements of negligence in a neutral and accurate manner. Third, Plaintiff took reasonable steps to prevent the deletions. 3:17-CV-00477 | 2017-08-10, U.S. District Courts | Property | These two actsmodification and abandonmentconstitute the "construction, reconstruction, or alterations" contemplated in NRS 535.010. 135. D.C. No. FED. Co. v. Mendelsohn, 552 U.S. 379, 384-87 (2008). The district court's attorneys' fees decision is moot and is vacated as well. 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. v. Reyes, Case No. Winecup opposes the motion arguing that the relevance and prejudicial impact of the evidence is best determined at trial, and that Union Pacific provides no argument why lay opinion that certain people were "sandbagging" requires an expert. [11769734] [20-16411] (Jordan, David) [Entered: 07/28/2020 03:34 PM], Docket(#7) MEDIATION ORDER FILED: This case is RELEASED from the Mediation Program. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA. The parties agree that Nevada law governs the interpretation of their contract. ; ECF No. Alaska Rent-A-Car, Inc. v. Avis Budget Group, Inc., 738 F.3d 960, 969 (9th Cir. 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. Casetext, Inc. and Casetext are not a law firm and do not provide legal advice. The case status is Pending - Other Pending. A reasonable jury could find punitive damages are warranted if it finds that Winecup acted with conscious disregard of the downstream property owners. The Court will not exclude Union Pacific from offering Fireman's deposition testimony at this time. 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. The case involved the sale of a ranch and whether $5 million in . 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. Plaintiff conducted a deposition of Mr. Worden subpoenaing all of his documents (including ESI) regarding discussions of the sale of ranch and amendments, the damage to the property, the repairs of the property, breakage of dams, and insurance information. As discussed in full below, the Court will permit Union Pacific to argue the issue of punitive damages. FED. Union Pacific's thirteenth motion in limine to bar evidence or argument related to an "Act of God" defense (ECF No. The Secretary of Transportation is given broad discretion to "prescribe regulations and issue orders for every area of railroad safety . ECF No. ECF No. 31). Union Pacific's eighth motion in limine to bar evidence or argument that a non-party is comparatively negligent (ECF No. 2:12-cv-01727-APG-NJK, 2014 WL 12646048, at *2 (D. Nev. May 28, 2014). [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. Union Pacific does not allege a claim for gross negligence, but simply makes a claim for negligence. 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. 250,000 ACRES DEEDED LAND WITH GRAZING RIGHTS ON OVER 1,000,000 ACRES. The determination of whether evidence is relevant to an action or issue is expansive and inclusive. 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. Plaintiff declined to repair the property. 126. 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. Mediation Questionnaire due on 03/16/2021. Prior to the flood, there were earthen embankments and culverts at the washout locations. C. Patrick Bates 801-560-4259 cpb@bateslandco.com. See ECF No. Accordingly, the Court finds that section 213.33 does not preempt Winecup's affirmative defense. 34 Ex. The amended order should include both the agreed amendments and those permitted by this Order. La. 130) is denied without prejudice. 139 at 8. See Sagebrush, Ltd. v. Carson City, 660 P.2d 1013, 1015 (Nev. 1983) ("Whether a legislative enactment provides a standard of conduct in the particular situation presented by the plaintiff is a question of statutory interpretation and construction for the court. ECF No. Union Pacific motions the Court to bar Winecup from offering evidence or argument that the Fish & Game allegedly requested that the Dake dam be preserved for the pike they had put in it. Razavian provides that his opinion on the mile post 670.03 washout is based on (1) his personal aerial observations and photographs taken of the area during a February 11, 2018 helicopter ride; (2) the lay of the vegetation in the area and damage to track embankments; (3) review of a topographic map of the area and the features of the land; (4) a photograph take by a news helicopter the day of the flood; (5) the presence of ice blocks on the tracks between mile post 669 at 670; and (6) an account in the Elko Daily from an NDOT Sheriff who noted that the water went around the Dake Reservoir. Co. v. Winecup Ranch, LLC, Case No. 9. FED. Union Pacific Railroad Company v. Winecup Ranch, LLC et al, Elko Broadband Ltd. v. Haidermota BNR, Lawyers and Counsel with Offices in Islamadad, Islamic Republic of Pakistan et al, Vincent G. Dimaggio v. Jacqueline L. Stoever. Under the umbrella of ROGER, the amount of collaborative work . Union Pacific's ninth motion in limine to bar mention to the jury of the notion that Nevada's dam statutes and regulations do not apply to the Winecup dams due to their age (ECF No. 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. ECF No. It is uncontested that 23 Mile dam is classified as a low hazard dam, and Dake dam as a significant hazard dam. Joe Glascock is a General Manager at Winecup Gamble Ranch based in Montello, Nevada. (ECF No. 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. 3:17-CV-00163-RCJ-WGC (D. Nev. Jul. Godwin's opinion on reconstruction costs is admissible. If expert opinions are not disclosed, "the party is not allowed to use that information or witness to supply evidence . The Court is open to presiding over a bench trial via ZOOM video conferencing if the parties are amendable to such a solution. ECF No. Accordingly, the late disclosure was harmless, and Lindon will be permitted to testify on the subject. Union Pacific argues that Lindon is not a qualified expert in meteorology because he does not hold a degree or certificate in the field. Winecup concedes that the Nevada Department of Water Resources classified the 23 Mile dam as a low hazard dam and the Dake dam as a significant hazard dam. Second, as to the infiltration data, disagreements over data imputes are again best left to cross-examination and presentation of contrary evidence. 3:20-CV-00293 | 2020-05-18. 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. Id. The ranch, in 2016, was for sale again. The schedule is set as follows: Appellant Winecup Gamble, Inc. 133) is denied without prejudice. Additionally, Union Pacific does not object to Winecup providing jurors with their own binders. After Winecup became aware of these opinions, its own expert, Lindon, conducted an additional investigation to determine the cause of the washout, including an on-the-ground field inspection of the Loray Wash and a topographical survey of the area.

Jamie Oliver Uncle Roger Response, Ridgewood High School Class Of 1968, Wccb News Cast, Articles W