P. 37 Advisory Committee Notes to the 2015 Amendment). (Id.) Winecup opposes, arguing that Union Pacific cites no authority or foundation for the Court on which to make such a ruling. . ON-SITE RAIL SPUR AND 2 LANDING STRIPS. 131) is DENIED without prejudice. The Court finds that while Winecup's disclosure that it intends to have these witnesses testify as a non-retained experts was technically late, Union Pacific has not been prejudiced by this late disclosure and it is harmless. 3:17-CV-00477 | 2017-08-10, U.S. District Courts | Other | /// ///. . 3:20-CV-00293 | 2020-05-18, U.S. District Courts | Contract | See Wyeth v. Rowatt, 244 P.3d 765, 775 (Nev. 2010). Transcript ordered by 08/21/2020. 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. 2-4. Further, Union Pacific indicates that the parties have separately agreed to amend the pretrial order to add trial exhibits. 175. Any further errors asserted by Union Pacific regarding Lindon's expert testimony are best left to cross-examination and presentation of contrary evidence as each goes to the weight of his testimony, not admissibility. Union Pacific argues that doing so would enable a smooth presentation of exhibits to the jury. 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. /// /// ///. 111 at 16-17. He declares that he has been "personally involved with rerouting for a Class 1 railroad approximately twelve times over the past six years." 8. 162. ROBERT C. JONES United States District Judge. 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. 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. As discussed above, Razavian's opinion the subject was first disclosed during his February 2017 deposition. Id. P. 37(e). 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"). winecup gamble ranch. 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. ECF Nos. Winecup Gamble Ranch Location PO Box 249, Montello, Nevada, 89830, United States Description Industry Agriculture General Agriculture Discover more about Winecup Gamble Ranch Recent News About Erica Beck Scoops Intent Scoops about Winecup Gamble Ranch 139) is denied. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA. However, Mr. Worden performed most of the negotiations for Plaintiff in reaching the agreement and amendment generating numerous emails and text messages with Mr. Fireman and others that allegedly no longer exist as well as other lost ESI. [12101491] (DLM) [Entered: 05/04/2021 12:13 PM], (#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. winecup gamble ranches llc. ECF No. ), Presently, Defendant moves for sanctions against Plaintiff alleging that Mr. Worden and Mr. Fireman, acting as Plaintiff's agents, spoliated the ESI. CV-12-1524-PHX-SRB (LOA), 2013 WL 2422691, at *3 (D. Ariz. June 3, 2013) (citations and internal quotations omitted). SEND MQ: Yes. 127) is denied without prejudice. ECF No. The Court heard selected oral argument on four of these motions on June 25, 2020 (ECF No. Mediation Questionnaire. Id. ; ECF No. "A contract is ambiguous if it is reasonably susceptible to more than one interpretation." WINECUP GAMBLE, INC., a Nevada corporation, Plaintiff, v. GORDON RANCH, LP, a Texas limited partnership, Defendant. at 44:19-45:1, 46:19-22). 405, 406 (W.D. (Id.). As the parties have already agreed to prepare their exhibits electronically, juror binders are unnecessarily redundant. 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. 18-16463-CIV-SELTZER, 2018 WL 4693526, at *1 (S.D. "The decision of whether to allow the jury to take notes is left entirely to the discretion of the trial court." 1) is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Date of service: 03/16/2021. 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. Public Records Policy. Union Pacific's fifteenth motion in limine to bar one paragraph in email referencing contract truck driver incidents (ECF No. 402. Id. To submit pertinent confidential information directly to the Circuit Mediators, please use the following # link . The Wine Cup headquarters are located on a long, lonely stretch of state highway just north of Wells, Nev., and the Gamble is farther southeast, near the one-bar town of Montello. Gordon Ranch attempted to purchase real property located in northern Nevada from Winecup Gamble in 2016. Winecup only argues that Fireman's deposition should be excluded as irrelevant and fails to make any showing that it will be substantially injured if the testimony is permitted. 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. NAC 535.240 is the only place in Chapter 535 that explains, colloquially, that a significant hazard dam must withstand a 1000-year flood event and a low hazard dam must withstand a 100-year flood event. 125. Lindon is a qualified expert in hydrology and meteorology. Casetext, Inc. and Casetext are not a law firm and do not provide legal advice. 3:17-CV-00163-RCJ-WGC United States District Court, D. Nevada Signed Febr. 124) is denied. 120-1 at 5. Union Pacific requests that Winecup be barred from offering evidence or argument that a non-party is comparatively negligent, arguing that, under Nevada law, such evidence is irrelevant. 3:17-CV-00163 | 2017-03-16, U.S. District Courts | Property | In its second motion in limine, Union Pacific argues that Lindon's opinions regarding the cause of the mile post 670.03 washout should be excluded because he "ignored considerable evidence" that Razavian relied upon for his own opinion. 176) is GRANTED. To submit pertinent confidential information directly to the Circuit Mediators, please use the following # link . 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. Gordon Ranch attempted to purchase real property located in northern Nevada from Winecup Gamble in 2016. 213.33 preempts Winecup from arguing that Union Pacific was contributorily negligence for maintaining culverts not sufficiently large enough to withstand a 50-year storm. (NRS 532.120, 535.010), provides: Union Pacific argues that these standards apply to both dams: it applies to 23 Mile dam because Winecup illegally, without proper approval, modified the outlet pipes in 1996 and was supposed to investigate the hydraulic adequacy of the dam with respect to flooding; and it applies to Dake dam because Winecup improperly abandoned the dam without applying for and having a decommissioning plan approved. 117 Ex. 149) is granted. (ECF No. Union Pacific filed its original complaint on August 10, 2017, against Winecup Gamble, Winecup Ranch, LLC, and Paul Fireman. Full title:WINECUP GAMBLE, INC., a Nevada corporation, Plaintiff, v. GORDON RANCH, Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA. 135) is denied in part and granted in part. ECF No. ), Plaintiff argues against sanctions asserting the following defenses: First, the deletions did not amount to any deprivation of evidence to Defendant claiming that it has produced all of the material, non-privileged ESI through other sources in spite of the deletions. See order for instructions and details. Before deciding on how damages are to be calculated, the Court will permit Winecup the opportunity to respond to Union Pacific's reply; briefing is not to exceed 15 pages of argument, excluding tables of contents and authorities and administrative notices. Winecup does not oppose this request. (internal quotations and citations omitted)). Tex. The Court dismisses Plaintiff's complaint and enters judgment in favor of Defendant on its counterclaim. 176. Co., 326 F. Supp. ECF No. 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. 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. 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. 108) to add information learned in the depositions of Paul Fireman and Clay Worden in Winecup Gamble, Inc. v. Gordon Ranch, LP, 3:17-cv-00163, related to Winecup's financial situation. ECF No. 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. NRS 535.030, titled Inspection of dams by State Engineer; powers of State Engineer to protect life or property, provides: Section 2 provides that the owner is responsible for other maintenance that is necessary to safeguard life and property. 20106(a)(2). In the court application, the franchisees are . WINECUP GAMBLE, INC., a Nevada corporation, Plaintiff, v. GORDON RANCH, LP, a Texas limited partnership, Defendant. 131. ECF Nos. Id. Lindon declared that he checked and calibrated the model ultimately determining with a "high degree of confidence that the model accurately reflects" the February 2017 flood event. 1980)). ECF No. Id. NAC 535.140. 1993) (finding that because the parties retained their own qualified experts, the appointment of a neutral expert was "not likely to enlighten or enhance the ability of the Court to determine the pending issue."). Lindon disputes both asserted errors. Appellee Gordon Ranch LP answering brief due 06/07/2021. Little pre-trial motion practice has occurred in this case other than the 27 pending motions in limine. 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.
Black Carthage Funeral Home Obituaries,
Cupcake Pageant Dress,
Articles W