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. Winecup argues that Union Pacific should be precluded from offering evidence of negligence per se because it cannot be based on administrative regulations and the one statute that it believes Union Pacific pleads under this theory, NRS 535.030, also fails. Id. 150) is denied without prejudice. Lindon is a qualified expert in hydrology and meteorology. Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief. In October 2016, the parties entered into a detailed seventeen-page agreement, where Plaintiff was to sell a ranch property in Northern Nevada to Defendant. 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. 124) is denied. P. 26(a)(2)(C). Additionally, the Court finds that the potential risk for jurors to view exhibits out of order, to lose focus during testimony, or be unable to take notes, weighs against providing such binders. However, each regulation was enacted under the authority of NRS 532.120, which confers upon the State Engineer the power to make such rules and regulations as may be necessary for the proper and orderly execution of its powers. Winecup Gamble Ranch has 1,500 acres of pivot-irrigated fields and another 500 acres under wheel and flood irrigation. The Court finds that NAC 535.240 is not a "first-time" interpretive regulation. Here, culverts and earthen embankments existed at the washed-out track locations. As part of the agreement, Defendant deposited a million dollars of earnest money in escrow. The optional reply brief is due 21 days from the date of service of the answering brief. Id. See NAC 535.140. 157-31; 157-32. Id. Federal Rule of Evidence 706 permits district courts, in their discretion, to appoint a neutral expert. 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." ECF No. Accordingly, the late disclosure was harmless, and Lindon will be permitted to testify on the subject. FED. Lindon disputes both asserted errors. 80 at 2. Winecup intends to introduce Godwin's opinion as evidence of what size culverts should be used based on the industry standard. 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]. 3:17-CV-00163-RCJ-WGC United States District Court, D. Nevada Signed Febr. SEND MQ: Yes. P. 37 Advisory Committee Notes to the 2015 Amendment). [21-15415] (AD) [Entered: 03/16/2021 06:44 PM], (#1) DOCKETED CAUSE AND ENTERED APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL. R. CIV. After reviewing this agreement and amendment, we disagree with the district court. In the alternative, Defendant further requests that the Court prevent Plaintiff from relying on any evidence or testimony from Mr. Worden or give the jury an instruction that the deleted evidence is adverse to Plaintiff's claims and defenses. 2. 37, 89), to which Winecup has answered (ECF No. Winecup Gamble, Inc. v. Gordon Ranch LP | D. Nevada | 03-17-2022 | www Get free access to the complete judgment in Winecup Gamble, Inc. v. Ranch on CaseMine. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. v. Thitchener, 192 P.3d 243, 252-53 (Nev 2008) (citing Evans v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., 5 P.3d 1043, 1052 (2000)). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Union Pacific's twentieth motion in limine to permit Union Pacific witnesses to testify by video (ECF No. 6. Ranch shifts focus to soil organic matter - Hay and Forage Mediation Questionnaire. See Hal Roach Studios Inc. v. Richard Feiner and Co., 896 F.2d 1542, 1550 (9th Cir. 132) is GRANTED. 107 Ex. 20106(a)(2). 175. While this disclosure is technically untimely, it was harmless; therefore, the procedural failure does not provide a basis for exclusion under Rule 37. Therefore, Union Pacific's fifth and sixth motions in limine are denied. winecup gamble inc. winecup gamble ranch people. 141 at 6. 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 . Casetext, Inc. and Casetext are not a law firm and do not provide legal advice. iii. Godwin's opinion on reconstruction costs is admissible. However, the Court agrees with Winecup that whether the email is admissible is a different question from whether evidence or argument regarding the preservation of the dam for pike is admissible. S.E.C. P. 37(c)(1). ), The original terms of the agreement contained a comprehensive risk-of-loss provision. See Madrigal v Treasure Island Corp., Case No. Appellee Gordon Ranch LP answering brief due 11/30/2020. Id. 120. 5. 36 Ex. 89 22-24. Accordingly, the Court denies Union Pacific's tenth motion in limine (ECF No. LARRY R. HICKS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE. And the best part of all, documents in their CrowdSourced Library are FREE! 15. ECF No. Alaska Rent-A-Car, Inc. v. Avis Budget Group, Inc., 738 F.3d 960, 969 (9th Cir. Lindon created a hydrological model that simulates the February 2017 flood using the Hydrologic Modeling System created by the Hydrologic Engineering Center within the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (known as "HEC-HMS"). 111 at 16. 1. 141-2 6. Union Pac. A reasonable jury could find punitive damages are warranted if it finds that Winecup acted with conscious disregard of the downstream property owners. 127. (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." 120-3. [12100962] [21-15415] (Jordan, David) [Entered: 05/04/2021 09:06 AM], Docket(#6) Filed order MEDIATION (SMC): This case is RELEASED from the Mediation Program. Snapp v. United Transportation Union, 889 F.3d 1088, 1103 (9th Cir. Applying this test, the Court finds that Defendant has satisfied its burden. 160-4 at 26. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA. 149. ECF No. Description PROPERTY HAS A PROVEN SOURCE OF AT LEAST 60,000 ACRE FEET OF WATER AND ALL RIGHTS TO THAT WATER. Joe Glascock Email & Phone Number - Winecup Gam.. | ZoomInfo Ex. facts known or opinions held by an expert who has been retained or specially employed by another party in anticipation of litigation or to prepare for trial and who is not expected to be called as a witness at trial." i. 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. Winecup opposes. Specifically, Defendant requests that this Court dispositively rule in its favor for its claims in the case. 111, 112, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 139, 175, 176 & 193), and 6 motions in limine filed by Winecup Gamble, Inc. ("Winecup") (ECF Nos. While supplementation almost a year a half after the deposition is untimely, the Court finds that Union Pacific has had more than enough time to consider this opinion and consult with its own expert on the subject such that it has not not been prejudiced by this supplemental disclosure. Thus, these regulations are not interpretive, but legislative and should not apply retroactively. However, Winecup may argue that it is not negligent or that a non-party is solely responsible, and Winecup may proffer admissible evidence in support thereof. (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. Mediation Questionnaire due on 07/29/2020. R. EVID. This communication will be kept confidential, if requested, and should not be filed with the court. 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. Outcome-based Grazing at the Winecup-Gamble Ranch [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. 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.[12043697]. Ins. In Zubulake, the court held that it was insufficient for a party to send a litigation hold letter to an IT department without ensuring that "all relevant information (or at least sources of relevant information) is discovered," "that relevant information is retained on a continuing basis," and "that relevant nonprivileged material is produced to the opposing party." ECF No. "A motion in limine is used to preclude prejudicial or objectionable evidence before it is presented to the jury." 141. The Court recognizes that "[i]t is time-consuming when counsel circulate exhibits among the jurors, and it disrupts the examination of witnesses, except where the physical qualities of an object are themselves relevant." Rather, "proof of a deviation from an administrative regulation is only evidence of negligence; not negligence per se," and likewise, "proof of compliance with such a regulation" is not proof of due care, but simply evidence of such care. 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. Make your practice more effective and efficient with Casetexts legal research suite. Godwin's opinion on rerouting is admissible. at 44:19-45:1), inappropriate backup settings (Id. There is evidence within the record that in 2008 Winecup was considering breaching the Dake dam; the correspondence indicated that it was awaiting more information from the State Engineer and that an inspection of the dam occurred in February 2009. [11769734] [20-16411] (Jordan, David) [Entered: 07/28/2020 03:34 PM], Docket(#1) DOCKETED CAUSE AND ENTERED APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL. 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. 535.300 sets forth the requirement for new construction of dams, not existing dams; and (2) because there is ample evidence that the storm that preceded 23 Mile dam's failure, exceeded a 100-year flood event. Nor has Union Pacific pointed to anything in the record to support that the State Engineer has considered legal action against Winecup under this statute for a violation due to abandonment of the Dake. Union Pacific filed its original complaint on August 10, 2017, against Winecup Gamble, Winecup Ranch, LLC, and Paul Fireman. Godwin's curriculum vitae provides that he has a degree in civil engineering with a concentration in "structures," and holds professional membership in the American Railway Engineering and Maintenance-of-Way Association, the American Short Line and Regional Railroad Association, and the Regional Engineering-Maintenance Suppliers Association. 1. Since, the Courts finds intentionality the harsher sanctions of Fed. Union Pacific pleads in its second amended complaint that the following Nevada Administrative Codes impose a standard of conduct obligating Winecup to act in accordance: NAC 535.370, 535.040, 535.240, 535.320. 157-2 at 66; 157-28. In the 2012 inspection report, it is noted that the spillway should be cleared of all debris and vegetation, however, in 2016, the inspection report provides that the spillway has lost its design capacity due to vegetation growing and earthen materials sluffing from the hillside. 160. i. Godwin's a qualified expert in railroad rerouting, costs, and railroad construction and design. In conducting his hydrology analysis, Razavian used a "Curved Number" of 92, which Lindon criticizes as being "too high." Winecup Gamble, Inc. v. Gordon Ranch LP | D. Nevada | 03-01-2023 | www See order for instructions and details. [20-16411] (AD) [Entered: 07/28/2020 06:44 PM], Docket(#3) MEDIATION ORDER FILED: By 08/11/2020, counsel to email Circuit Mediator regarding settlement potential. 122) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part in accordance with this Order. Banks ex rel Banks v. Sunrise Hosp., 102 P.3d 52, 67 (Nev. 2004). 160-6 2. With this expeditious timeframe, Defendant has shown that the ESI was deleted after the duty arose to preserve the ESI. Moreover. Full title:WINECUP GAMBLE, INC., a Nevada corporation, Plaintiff, v. GORDON RANCH, Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA. 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. Plaintiff had imposed an oral litigation hold that proved insufficient and a good deal of ESI went missing. 127) is DENIED. ECF No. NRS 42.005(1). Understanding the gambling laws of Canada - Mtltimes.ca "Legal duties imposed on railroads by the common law fall within the scope of these broad phrases." The Court will however leave open the ability for parties to prepare jury binders solely for evidence that has been admitted during trial for the jurors to take with them into the jury room for deliberations if the parties prefer that over the electronic exhibits. Alamo Airways, Inc. v. Benum, 374 P.2d 684, 686 (Nev. 1962). Appellant Winecup Gamble, Inc. opening brief due 10/30/2020. Ins. The parties are encouraged and permitted to file a stipulation requesting pre-admittance of any uncontested exhibits. 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. 11. Again, the Court agrees with Winecup: the Court cannot make a ruling on whether judicial notice is proper without sufficient information. [12029509] (JBS) [Entered: 03/09/2021 01:23 PM], U.S. District Courts | Property | And the best part of all, documents in their CrowdSourced Library are FREE! 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[.]" ECF No. 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. 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. Counsel are requested to contact the Circuit Mediator should circumstances develop that warrant settlement discussions while the appeal is pending. 2011). Contact. Date of service: 03/16/2021. However, it is not for the Court to conclude which expert is correct; that is for the jury to decide. AnyLaw is the FREE and Friendly legal research service that gives you unlimited access to massive amounts of valuable legal data. ///. Paul Fireman, Winecup Gamble, Inc. and Winecup Ranch, LLC: Case Number: 3:2017cv00477: Filed: August 10, 2017: Court: US District Court for the District of Nevada: Office: Reno Office: . Today, the provinces of Canada still uphold their own gambling laws, making it a little tricky to gamble online legally if you live in a province with a negative attitude towards gambling. The following definitions are relevant to making this determination: (1) oppression means "despicable conduct that subjects a person to cruel and unjust hardship with conscious disregard of the rights of the person"; (2) fraud means "intentional misrepresentation, deception or concealment of a material fact known to the person with the intent to deprive another person of his or her rights or property or to otherwise injure another person"; (3) malice, express or implied, means "conduct which is intended to injure a person or despicable conduct which is engaged in with a conscious disregard of the rights or safety of others"; and (4) conscious disregard means "the knowledge of the probable and harmful consequences of a wrongful act and a willful and deliberative failure to act to avoid these consequences." R.R. .." Id. 191. Counsel are requested to contact the Circuit Mediator should circumstances develop that warrant settlement discussions. Additionally, Union Pacific requests the Court appoint a neutral expert to be either a technical advisor to the Court or expert witness. Winecup opposes the motion arguing that Opperman is not a retained expert, and therefore, it did not violate Rule 26 by not submitting a written expert report to Union Pacific.
Tbn Founders Divorce,
Colombia Travel Requirements Covid,
Schroon Lake Water Temperature,
Articles W