Make your practice more effective and efficient with Casetexts legal research suite. 89 16, 32, 50; ECF No. The existing briefing schedule remains in effect. Union Pacific filed its original complaint on August 10, 2017, against Winecup Gamble, Winecup Ranch, LLC, and Paul Fireman. R.R. WINECUP GAMBLE, INC., a Nevada corporation, Plaintiff, v. GORDON RANCH, LP, a Texas limited partnership, Defendant. 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. If the jury finds in the affirmative, a subsequent proceeding will occur during which the parties will be permitted to present evidence of the financial condition of the defendant and the jury could award punitive damages. Such that there is virtually no chance of its being exceeded."). The amendment uses broad categorical language that purportedly made the earnest money non-refundable in almost all circumstances. With this expeditious timeframe, Defendant has shown that the ESI was deleted after the duty arose to preserve the ESI. AnyLaw is the FREE and Friendly legal research service that gives you unlimited access to massive amounts of valuable legal data. The briefing schedule previously set by the court is amended as follows: appellant's opening brief is due May 21, 2021; appellee's answering brief is due June 21, 2021; appellant's optional reply brief is due within 21 days from the service date of the answering brief. See Sea-Land Serv., Inc. v. Lozen Int'l, LLC, 285 F.3d 808, 821 (9th Cir. (Id. 112) are denied. The case involved the sale of a ranch and whether $5 million in . Winecup does not oppose this request. Godwin's opinions on pre-flood design structures are admissible. 120-1. 1. In response, Union Pacific moves in its nineteenth motion in limine to preclude these three witnesses from offering expert testimony because of the late disclosure. 155-5. 3:17-cv-00477-LRH-CLB, 2020 WL The State Engineer is also authorized to inspect all dams and order dam owners to make modifications and alterations necessary for safety, which presumably is based on the hazard classification of the dam. Winecup may motion the Court to reconsider this determination based on the evidence presented at trial. However, "if a regulation is a first-time interpretive regulation, application to preexisting issues may be permissible." 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. Additionally, Plaintiff has not produced any of Mr. Worden's accounting work papers, which is relevant to Defendant's case and covered by Defendant's subpoena. 141) is denied. Zubulake, 229 F.R.D. 2001); United States v. Layton, 767 F.2d 549, 556 (9th Cir. UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY, a Delaware corporation, Plaintiff, v. WINECUP RANCH, LLC, an Idaho Limited Liability Company; and WINECUP GAMBLE, INC., a Nevada corporation; and PAUL FIREMAN, an individual, Defendants. Ex. 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."). 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. [12029509] (JBS) [Entered: 03/09/2021 01:23 PM]. Jan. 31, 2013). 159. See Emblaze Ltd. v. Apple Inc., 52 F. Supp. 175), are DENIED without prejudice. 2015) (per curiam). at 43:14-25), upgrading to a new computer during this time (Id. ECF No. Second, Winecup addresses Nevada Revised Statute 535.030, which it claims also cannot provide the basis for Union Pacific's negligence per se claim. 141. 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. See Tennison v. Circus Circus Enterprises, Inc., 244 F.3d 684, 690 (9th Cir. For clarity, the Court address the parties' competing motions for exclusion together here. Under Nevada law, a "jury may not apportion fault to non-parties, and evidence or argumentation directed to showing non-parties' comparative fault is therefore inadmissible." Winecup opposes this request as unnecessary. 164. iii. Union Pacific does not provide the actual language of a proposed instruction, but simply lists the statutes and regulations upon which it proposes the parties craft preliminary instructions. (Id. 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. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Union Pacific's fourteenth motion in limine to bar evidence or argument about consulting experts (ECF No. It's about 100 miles from Elko, Nev . are for the jury.") 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. Casetext, Inc. and Casetext are not a law firm and do not provide legal advice. 702. 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. . Date of service: 03/16/2021. 5. 2016)) (emphasis provided by Snapp). A Test Site for How to Monitor Success. 120-3. REVERSED, VACATED, and . ECF No. The court's role is to "screen the jury from unreliable nonsense opinions, . AnyLaw is the FREE and Friendly legal research service that gives you unlimited access to massive amounts of valuable legal data. The Court agrees with Winecup: any ruling that Winecup is precluded from arguing that a specific statute applies in this case must be made on a statute-by-statute/ regulation-by-regulation basis. ECF No. 34 Ex. Union Pacific further argues that evidence of Winecup's financial condition is "to allow the jury to fully evaluate the decades of neglect, to see it was not due to financial straits but was fully calculated and intentional with an eye to profits." FED. "); 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." While this disclosure is technically untimely, it was harmless; therefore, the procedural failure does not provide a basis for exclusion under Rule 37. Winecup also argues that Razavian's opinion on the subject should be excluded under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 because he does not rely on sufficient facts or data and does not use or apply reliable principles and methods to reach his opinion. See NRS 535.030. 2:19-CV-00520 | 2019-07-23, U.S. District Courts | Personal Injury | Winecup opposes, arguing that (1) it has not admitted these facts and they are not "undisputed;" (2) the facts are irrelevant; (3) Worden is a third-party witness whose deposition testimony is not admissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 32(a)(8); and (4) that Union Pacific's failure to conduct this discovery during this case precludes it from now using the information. The optional reply brief is due 21 days from the date of service of the answering brief. 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. No other issues will be entertained without leave of the Court. ECF No. "The decision of whether to allow the jury to take notes is left entirely to the discretion of the trial court." 2:12-cv-01727-APG-NJK, 2014 WL 12646048, at *2 (D. Nev. May 28, 2014). The Court will address each argument in turn. 112, 2:15-22.) Winecup Gamble Ranch. P. 37(e)(2) are available. When a party challenges the correctness of the opposing party's expert's testimony, "its recourse is not exclusion of the testimony, but, rather, refutation of it by cross-examination and by the testimony of its own expert witnesses." 108 at 10. The amended order should include both the agreed amendments and those permitted by this Order. Id. Accordingly, the late disclosure was harmless, and Lindon will be permitted to testify on the subject. ECF No. iv. [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. This regulation, titled Requirements for approval. Co. v. Winecup Ranch, LLC, Case No. 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. Accordingly, the Court finds that section 213.33 does not preempt Winecup's affirmative defense. "The fact that the parties' experts have a divergence of opinion does not require the district court to appoint experts to aid in resolving such conflicts." (ECF No. 107 Ex. See, e.g., Mallard Bay Drilling, Inc. v. Bessard, 145 F.R.D. The Court agrees with Winecup. Plaintiff declined to repair the property. ECF No. ECF No. at 4 (citing Ringle v. Bruton, 86 P.3d 1032, 1037).) 107) is GRANTED. 175. ECF No. 3:20-CV-00293 | 2020-05-18. An Act of God "must be such a providential occurrence or extraordinary manifestation of the forces of nature that it could not reasonably have been foreseen, and the effect thereof avoided by the exercis[e] of reasonable prudence, diligence and care, or by the use of those means which the situation renders reasonable to employ." ECF No. The Court does not presently address the request for attorney's fees. v. Reyes, Case No. ECF No. . 129) is denied without prejudice. 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. i. 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. They include Needle-and-Thread, Great Basin wild rye, Russian wild rye, Indian rice, crested wheat, bluebunch wheat, Sandberg blue, and bottlebrush squirrel tail. ECF No. P. 37 Advisory Committee Notes to the 2015 Amendment). 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. 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. 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. ECF No. The Court notes that this repair does not show up in either the 2012 or 2016 inspection report which would indicate the repair was made sometime between 2003 and 2012. 2:19-CV-00414 | 2019-06-17, U.S. District Courts | Contract | 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. Because Union Pacific cannot rely on these administrative regulations to support negligence per se, the Court grants Winecup's motion as it relates to these and any other administrative regulation Union Pacific would consider proffering in support. 107 Ex. 80 at 2. Joe Glascock's Phone Number and Email Last Update. Winecup's second and third motions in limine also relates to the standard of care to be used in this negligence case. Public Records Policy. Gamble Ranch - Straddling the Wyoming & Utah Border 1,130 Deeded Acres Tucked Into Butch Cassidy Country Sold Overview & Featured Qualities Previously Offered at $4,300,000 Now Available at $3,850,000 Close to High Uinta Mountain Wilderness Remarkable 3,800 SF Lodge Fine Set of Cattle-Handling Facilities Two Additional Homes for Manager & Guests 191 at 2, n.1. 9. Co. v. Gen. Elec. 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. 126. 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. SEND MQ: Yes. We are so incredibly thankful that Patrick Bates and David Packer of Bates Land Consortium, Inc chose us to produce this mammoth of a marketing video. Mediation Questionnaire. Amarel v. Connell, 102 F.3d 1494, 1515 (9th Cir.
Mark Bouris Wife Photo,
University Of Wisconsin Webcams,
Articles W