[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. 129) is denied without prejudice. 2-4. wine cup ranch llc. The Court will not preclude Union Pacific from presenting evidence and argument that a reasonable dam owner would have followed this regulation and maintained all dams to withstand the particular flood event based on the assigned hazard classification of its dam, including the flood standard. According to ZoomInfo records, James Rogers's professional experience began in 2015. A, 47:2-6.) 15, 2021) (unpublished), the Ninth Circuit reversed entry of terminating sanctions, vacated the judgment, and remanded for further proceedings. Lastly, Union Pacific motions the Court to amend the pretrial order (ECF No. It is clear to the Court based on this argument that Union Pacific intends to offer the financial information as it relates to punitive damages. 191 at 2, n.1. . Margrave, 878 P.2d at 293; see Bielar v. Washoe Health Sys., Inc., 306 P.3d 360, 364 (Nev. 2013) ("[E]very word [in a contract] must be given effect if at all possible.") That is part of the adversarial processboth sides present their expert's opinions, challenging each other where they think the other erred, and then it is up to the jury to decide whom to believe. Under Federal Rule of Evidence 705, "[u]nless the court orders otherwise, an expert may state an opinionand give the reasons for itwithout first testifying to the underlying facts or data. Godwin testified that the RS Means methodology is the "industry standard" for estimating construction costs. 3:17-cv-00477-LRH-CLB, 2020 WL 112) are denied. The Court finds that multiple exhibit binders each with a few hundred exhibits is impractical and unnecessary given the electronics available in the courtroom. Id. Union Pacific filed its original complaint on August 10, 2017, against Winecup Gamble, Winecup Ranch, LLC, and Paul Fireman. Second, Defendant has shown that Plaintiff failed to take reasonable steps to preserve the ESI after the duty arose to preserve it. Documentary footage of life and work on the Gamble division of the Winecup Gamble Ranch, Montello, Nevada. 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. Date of service: 07/29/2020. The Secretary of Transportation is given broad discretion to "prescribe regulations and issue orders for every area of railroad safety . By that time, it had over 9,000 cattle and a reputation as one of the great ranches of Nevada. See Daubert, 509 U.S at 596 ("Vigorous cross-examination, presentation of contrary evidence, and careful instruction on the burden of proof are the traditional and appropriate means of attacking shaky but admissible evidence."). Winecup Gamble, Inc. v. Ranch | 3:17-cv-00163-ART-CSD | D. Nev 166. (internal quotations and citations omitted)). Full title:WINECUP GAMBLE, INC., a Nevada corporation, Plaintiff, v. GORDON RANCH, Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF 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. eDiscovery Assistant The Court finds that this trial presents no extenuating circumstance or reason to deviate from this process, especially given that the parties are not in agreement as to any of the proposed instructions. Id. . B at 23:14-21.) Include Ninth Circuit case number in subject line. 120-1. The three owners of the province's five franchises filed the lawsuit in Quebec Superior Court on Feb. 14. See Hawthorne Partners v. AT&T Techs., Inc., 831 F. Supp. Id. Lindon disputes both asserted errors. Contact. NAC 535.140. And the best part of all, documents in their CrowdSourced Library are FREE! FED. See order for instructions and details. (ECF No. 3:17-CV-00157 | 2017-03-13, U.S. District Courts | Labor | j***@winecupgambleranch.com. 111-7 (Union Pacific's hydrology expert declared that the HEC-HMS is an acceptable method to calculate runoff). Id. 3:20-CV-00293 | 2020-05-18, U.S. District Courts | Contract | However, without reference to that section, the amendment contained the clause: "Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the Agreement, the Earnest Money, as increased by the Additional Earnest Money, shall be nonrefundable under all circumstances other than a default by Seller." Winecup opposes this request as unnecessary. Co., 326 F. Supp. The Court will not conflate the question of admissibility with the weight to be given the testimony by considering the persuasiveness of competing scientific methods; those questions are for the fact finder. As of December 2015, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(e) provides the specificand onlybasis for sanctions for spoliation of ESI, which was substantially amended to accommodate advances in technology and provide uniformity among the circuits. Razavian's expert report concludes the following regarding the cause of track washouts: Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure states that an expert must provide "a complete statement of all opinions the witness will express and the basis and reasons for them." (citation omitted). 135) is denied in part and granted in part. Appellant Winecup Gamble, Inc. opening brief due 10/30/2020. 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. Union Pacific argues that Winecup is barred from asserting an "Act of God" defense. However, Union Pacific may present this evidence only in the secondary proceeding to determine the amount of punitive damages, should the case reach this proceeding. B, 22:14-21.) 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. ECF No. Union Pacific alleges that as a result of the dam's failure, water flowed downstream, in part, to the Dake Reservoir dam, and that the Dake then eroded and breached, causing flooding and ultimately washing out a significant portion of Union Pacific's railroad tracks. 1980) (internal citations omitted). 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. 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. Union Pacific's arguments against his qualifications go to the weight of his testimony, not admissibility, and are best left to vigorous cross-examination. C 06-04435 CRB, 2007 WL 963422, at *1 (N.D. Cal. To submit pertinent confidential information directly to the Circuit Mediators, please use the following # link . 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[.]" are for the jury.") C. Patrick Bates 801-560-4259 cpb@bateslandco.com. Price v. Sinnott, 460 P.2d 837, 839-40 (Nev. 1969). The Court will address each in turn. ECF No. 107 Ex. Colony Ins. See order for instructions and details. Counsel are requested to contact the Circuit Mediator should circumstances develop that warrant settlement discussions. Union Pacific's arguments in opposing Godwin's testimony are best left to cross-examination and presentation of opinion evidence by Union Pacific's own experts rather than exclusion. & Constructors Inc., 880 F.2d 219, 221 (9th Cir. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA. 117 Ex. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties are to submit an amended pretrial order within 45 days of the filing of this Order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Union Pacific's ninth motion in limine to bar mention to jury of notion that Nevada's dam statutes and regulations do not apply to the Winecup dams due to their age (ECF No. As part of the agreement, Defendant deposited a million dollars of earnest money in escrow. On or about February 8, 2017, the 23 Mile dam overtopped and breached in two locations. 49 U.S.C. 130. And, necessarily, the regulation must apply to all dams, not just those in existence after March 15, 1951. Accordingly, the Court denies Union Pacific's seventh motion in limine. 157-31; 157-32. Winecup opposes. 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." Id. ECF No. This short-term action was again noted in the 2016 inspection report which would indicate that Winecup had failed to provide these plans for 20 years. ECF No. 133) is denied without prejudice. Whether an Act of God caused 23 Mile dam's failure and subsequent flooding and damage to Union Pacific's railroad tracks is an issue of fact for the jury. 1980)). 3:17-cv-00477-LRH-CLB (D. Nev. Dec. 4, 2020). The lead plaintiff in the lawsuit, Montreal resident Qing Wang, lost $11,720 to enrolment fees charged by C.S.T. i. Newberry v. Cty. Winecup Gamble, Inc. v. Gordon Ranch LP - UniCourt 155-5. 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. Winecup Gamble Ranch Atmospherics - YouTube The Court finds that the legal issues and circumstances presented in this case are not so complex or exceptional that a neutral expert is needed to assist the trier of fact and, therefore, denies Union Pacific's motion to do so. 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. "The decision of whether to allow the jury to take notes is left entirely to the discretion of the trial court." A presumption that the lost information was unfavorable to Plaintiff or an adverse jury instruction would not sufficiently cure Defendant's prejudice. See ECF No. The high desert of northeastern Nevada poses unique environmental challenges for producers growing forages. The trend, however, did not spread to the rest of the 10 provinces. 4. Moreover, Opperman, Holt, and Quaglieri are all listed in the parties' joint pre-trial order as witnesses that both Union Pacific and Winecup may call, and both parties are well aware of the proposed testimony of each witness. 122 at 2. United States v. Baker, 10 F.3d 1374, 1403 (9th Cir. 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." 401. winecup gamble inc. winecup gamble ranch people. Winecup argues that Union Pacific should only be permitted to recover the cost of replacing the culverts and embankments rather than the bridge "upgrade," and that it does not intend to argue whether culverts or bridges should have been built. 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."

Spiritual Retreat Uk 2021, Articles W