Further, while Winecup argues that Razavian's observations were "superficial," Winecup has given the Court no reason to discount Razavian's opinion that considering the "empirical data" he observed in the area of a flood is an unacceptable methodology for determining the flow of a flood. SEND MQ: Yes. [12077160] (AF) [Entered: 04/16/2021 11:36 AM], (#5) MEDIATION CONFERENCE RESCHEDULED - DIAL-IN Assessment Conference, 04/14/2021, 9:30 a.m. Pacific Time (originally scheduled on 03/31/2021). UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. As the ranch's manager, Rogers offered Winecup-Gamble as a test site for the researchers. Outcome-based Grazing at the Winecup-Gamble Ranch United States v. Baker, 10 F.3d 1374, 1403 (9th Cir. 111 & 112. While ultimately whether to award punitive damages is a question for the jury, the district court must first make a "threshold determination that a defendant's conduct is subject to this form of civil punishment." 2:19-CV-00520 | 2019-07-23, U.S. District Courts | Personal Injury | As discussed in full below, the Court will permit Union Pacific to argue the issue of punitive damages. Union Pacific's arguments against his qualifications go to the weight of his testimony, not admissibility, and are best left to vigorous cross-examination. 9. We express no view regarding what attorneys' fees (if any) are reasonable in these circumstances, and leave that determination to the sound discretion of the district court. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(4)(D), a party may not discover "by interrogatories or deposition . "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." Quebec authorized a class-action lawsuit against group RESPs. It may Gallo v. Union Pacific R.R. 91). [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. This is the subject of Winecup's first motion in limine; therefore, Union Pacific's arguments will be addressed below. 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. Today, the trust and relationships built through ROGER have helped create a working group that is focused on one of the pilot ranches participating in the BLM's Outcome-Based Grazing Authorizations (OBGA) program taking place on the Winecup-Gamble Ranch outside of Wells, Nevada. Therefore, the Court denies Union Pacific's eleventh and nineteenth motions in limine. 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. The optional reply brief is due 21 days from the date of service of the answering brief. Id. The Court reiterates that is open to presiding over a bench trial via ZOOM video conferencing if the parties are amendable to such a solution. Further, evidence may be excluded when there is a significant danger that the jury might base its decision on emotion, or when non-party events would distract reasonable jurors from the real issues in a case. 7. (Id.) 107, Ex. 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. "This general proposition should not be overstated, however, because it applies only where the purportedly conflicting evidence truly, and without good reason or explanation, is in conflict, i.e., where it cannot be deemed as clarifying or simply providing full context for the Rule 30(b)(6) deposition." Second, Winecup addresses Nevada Revised Statute 535.030, which it claims also cannot provide the basis for Union Pacific's negligence per se claim. at 44:19-45:1, 46:19-22). Winecup Gamble, Inc. v. Gordon Ranch LP - UniCourt Accordingly, Union Pacific's sixteenth motion is denied without prejudice and the Court reserves ruling on whether the terminology is either irrelevant, unfairly prejudicial or overly technical such that an expert is needed to testify, based on the context in which it is presented at trial. (ECF No. Northeast corner of Nevada bordering Utah. 176) is granted. And, neither Mr. Fireman nor Mr. Worden are able of producing these text messages. Transcript due 09/21/2020. winecup gamble ranch llc. 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. 2:21-CV-00183 | 2021-03-26, U.S. District Courts | Contract | 422 (S.D.N.Y. Accordingly, Union Pacific's first and second motions in limine are denied. [12029509] (JBS) [Entered: 03/09/2021 01:23 PM], U.S. District Courts | Property | 157-31; 157-32. (ECF No. Likewise, Union Pacific's other arguments go to the weight of his testimony, not admissibility, and are best left to vigorous cross examination. 120-1 at 5. Make your practice more effective and efficient with Casetexts legal research suite. Having reviewed Lindon's declaration detailing his 40-year work history in the field of hydrology, including work in hydrological assessments and modeling, dam inspections, and evaluations, the Court agrees that Lindon is qualified to opine on hydrology issues. 133) is DENIED without prejudice. iii. Again, the Court agrees with Winecup: the Court cannot make a ruling on whether judicial notice is proper without sufficient information. 129) is DENIED without prejudice. Date of service: 03/16/2021. 175), are denied without prejudice. Winecup does not oppose this request. The Court agrees with Winecup. UniCourt uses cookies to improve your online experience, for more information please see our Privacy Policy. UniCourt uses cookies to improve your online experience, for more information please see our Privacy Policy. Winecup's expert Derek Godwin provided opinions on three topics: (1) pre-flood design structures at mileposts 670.03, 672.14, 677.32, and 679.28; (2) re-routing costs and the reasonableness of the routes and costs; and (3) reconstruction costs and the reasonableness of replacement structures. 5. 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. Counsel are requested to contact the Circuit Mediator should circumstances develop that warrant settlement discussions while the appeal is pending. ECF No. ECF No. SEE ORDER FOR DETAILS. Here, both parties have retained their own experts, and as discussed below, all are qualified. ECF No. Ranch shifts focus to soil organic matter - Hay and Forage 89 1. Union Pacific cites several sections of the NRS and NAC that it argues plainly apply to the Winecup dams, and letters from the State Engineer which show that Winecup was aware that certain sections of these statutes and regulations applied to the dams. Id. ECF No. 135) is denied in part and granted in part. The existing briefing schedule remains in effect. And there can be no dispute that Godwin's opinion is relevant and advances a material aspect of Winecup's case: Godwin's opinion goes directly to whether Union Pacific was contributorily negligent for the damaged tracks. In allowing note taking, the Court finds it appropriate to give jurors Ninth Circuit Model Jury Instruction 1.18 Taking Notes, or one comparable, that is agreed on by the parties. at 45, 50. ECF No. 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. 8. 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. A at 14.) 120-3. 124) is DENIED. Id. 107 Ex. 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. Union Pacific attacks Lindon's hydrology testimony, arguing that (1) Lindon misapplied the "gage stream technique" and (2) used the wrong infiltration data. Conversely, Clay Worden was never an employee of Winecup, and testified in Gordon Ranch in his individual capacity, not as a corporate witness or agent of Winecup. . WINECUP GAMBLE, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. GORDON RANCH LP, Defendant-Appellee. ///. Cal. 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. 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. While 23 Mile dam is classified as a low hazard dam, meaning it carries a "very low probability of causing a loss of human life;" and a "reasonable probability of causing little, if any, economic loss or disruption in a lifeline," that does not negate a dam owner's statutory mandate to perform "work necessary to maintenance and operation which will safeguard life and property." Viewing a thread - Winecup-Gamble Ranch for sale Plaintiff declined to repair the property. WINECUP GAMBLE, INC., a Nevada corporation, Plaintiff, v. GORDON RANCH, LP, a Texas limited partnership, Defendant Case No. Nonetheless, even if Mr. Worden deleted the emails immediately after receiving them, the facts show that he was still producing ESI regarding this case after the duty to preserve arose. The Ninth Circuit has held that the "[a]uthority to determine the victor in such a 'battle of expert witnesses' is properly reposed in the jury." Because the district court has now twice erroneously issued pretrial orders terminating the case, see Winecup Gamble, Inc. v. Gordon Ranch LP, 747 F. App'x 632, 633 (9th Cir. 1985). 401. In its second motion, though Union Pacific concedes that Lindon is qualified to opine on hydrology, it argues that his opinions should be excluded because his methodology and data were flawed. (Id.). Winecup's sixth motion in limine to exclude evidence and argument related to the financial condition of Winecup, Paul Fireman, and the sale of Winecup Gamble Ranch in 2019 (ECF No. Following the Nevada Supreme Court in Thitchener, as a matter of law, a plaintiff is not entitled to pursue punitive damages on negligence claims. During the initial proceeding, the jury will decide whether Winecup acted with oppression, fraud, or malice. Union Pacific's arguments to exclude Godwin's opinion go not to admissibility, but to the weight and are best left to cross-examination during trial; the exclusion is denied. Id. The amended agreement is certainly not susceptible only to the interpretation adopted by the district court, regarding whether the amendment sought to change or modify the detailed risk-of-loss scheme detailed in the terms of the parties' original agreement. 131), and reserves any ruling on this issue for trial. Winecup objects to the presentation of exhibit binders arguing that doing so would require the court to rule on the admissibility of all contested exhibits prior to trial, and that given the number of exhibits, juror binders are "impractical, burdensome, and awkward." [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. . 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. Id. (ECF No. 171 at 4-5. 157-24, 157-28. The Court heard selected oral argument on four of these motions on June 25, 2020 (ECF No. Union Pacific's thirteenth motion in limine to bar evidence or argument related to an "Act of God" defense (ECF No. 157-24 at 3-4. 160-3 at 44. The parties are encouraged and permitted to file a stipulation requesting pre-admittance of any uncontested exhibits. The Court finds that allowing Union Pacific to amend the pretrial order on this issue will not result in injustice to Winecup and any inconvenience to the Court is slight. Research the case of Winecup Gamble, Inc. v. Gordon Ranch LP, from the D. Nevada, 03-01-2023. ///. 139) is DENIED. Here, the material in the supplemental disclosure relates to Lindon's analysis after hearing Razavian's opinion from his February 2017 deposition. It also helps that the Winecup Gamble has so many pastures to choose from. Union Pacific cites an email from Bill Nisbet to James Rogers, in which he states: It is unclear whether the parties are referring to the Federal or State agency. The record indicates that this dam is also known as 21 Mile dam. 3:19-CV-00700 | 2019-11-20. Union Pacific's seventeenth motion in limine to bar Winecup from providing trial testimony that contradicts its Rule 30(b)(6) witness's deposition testimony (ECF No. 167. (Id.). 166. Get free access to the complete judgment in Winecup Gamble, Inc. v. Ranch on CaseMine. The language of the amendment does not specifically state that this result was desired or intended, and, in the absence of such a clear statement of the parties' intent, we find that the parties' agreement is ambiguous in this particular respect. Previously, Joe was a Student at King Ranch and also held pos itions at Roaring Springs Ranch Club. [11785954] (BLS) [Entered: 08/12/2020 08:52 AM], (#5) Filed (ECF) Appellee Gordon Ranch LP Mediation Questionnaire. Before the court are a total of 27 motions in limine; 21 motions filed by Union Pacific Railroad Company ("Union Pacific") (ECF Nos. (Id.) The Court notes Winecup raises such a specific argument in its second motion in liminewhether Winecup can argue that NAC 535.240 does not apply to its damswhich the Court addresses below. On 03/09/2021 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. 107 Ex. Co., 326 F. Supp. 89 16, 32, 50; ECF No. First, the evidence shows that the ESI was deleted after a duty arose to preserve it. Casetext, Inc. and Casetext are not a law firm and do not provide legal advice. 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. 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. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Winecup's sixth motion in limine to exclude evidence and argument related to the financial condition of Winecup, Paul Fireman, and the sale of Winecup Gamble Ranch in 2019 (ECF No. P. 37(e)(2) are available. Phillips v. C.R. The Court finds that multiple exhibit binders each with a few hundred exhibits is impractical and unnecessary given the electronics available in the courtroom. 2011). 149. ii. 123. 3:17-CV-00163-RCJ-WGC United States District Court, D. Nevada Signed Febr. ECF No. See Wyeth v. Rowatt, 244 P.3d 765, 775 (Nev. 2010). 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. 1980) (internal citations omitted). Union Pacific moves this Court to permit its witnesses that must travel by plane or more than three hours by car to testify via videoconference. While a degree or certificate in a certain area is helpful to support expert qualification, a witness can be qualified by "knowledge, skill, experience, [or] training," as well as education. Both parties appeal. ECF No. ), The original terms of the agreement contained a comprehensive risk-of-loss provision. Make your practice more effective and efficient with Casetexts legal research suite. 127. 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. R. EVID. Accordingly, Union Pacific's third motion in limine (ECF No. Accordingly, the Court denies Union Pacific's requested exclusion. Winecup Gamble Ranch Global Presence. 2014) (quoting Primiano, 598 F.3d at 564). Under the provision, Plaintiff bore the risk of loss until closing, where, in the case of casualty loss before closing, Defendant had the option to take the property as-is with insurance proceeds or to reject the property and take back its earnest money. Price v. Sinnott, 460 P.2d 837, 839-40 (Nev. 1969). Cnty. ECF No. First, as to the gage stream technique, Union Pacific's expert concluded that because none of the six streams Lindon relied on were located in the "relevant watershed," this technique was "inferior" to the technique he used, the CN technique. Second, Winecup argues that even if it does apply, it cannot have retroactive applicability. "); ECF No. This is a question of accuracy, not admissibility, and it is best left to the jury to consider the weight of this evidence. Union Pacific motions the Court to prohibit Winecup from offering any expert witnesses, including expert testimony from Luke Opperman, the Nevada Department of Water Resources engineer who inspected both the 23 Mile Dam and the Dake Dam before and after the incident, because he was not disclosed as an expert and Winecup failed to provide a written report as required under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2)(A)-(B). at 840. . 3:12-cv-00344-RCJ-WGC, 2015 WL 260873, at *4 (D. Nev. Jan. 21, 2015) (emphasis in original). The parties timely responded. Amarel v. Connell, 102 F.3d 1494, 1515 (9th Cir. P. 26(a)(2)(B) (emphasis added). (ECF No. 129. 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. (ECF No. 207 ) is extended . 17. FED. Alaska Rent-A-Car, Inc. v. Avis Budget Group, Inc., 738 F.3d 960, 969 (9th Cir. Winecup Gamble, Inc v Gordon Ranch LP | 20-16411 - UniCourt ECF No. ECF No. And such communications took place shortly after the flood on February 21, 2017. See 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. Accordingly, the Court finds that section 213.33 does not preempt Winecup's affirmative defense. See order for instructions and details. (citation omitted). All foota. 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." Cancellation and Refund Policy, Privacy Policy, and 2001); United States v. Layton, 767 F.2d 549, 556 (9th Cir. (ECF No. Winecup Gamble, Inc. v. Gordon Ranch, LP - Casetext Winecup opposes this request as unnecessary. 134. ECF No. Winecup opposes this motion arguing that Ninth Circuit precedent permits a 30(b)(6) deponent that answered "I don't know" to supplement, contextualize, and even contradict such statements at trial, and that a 30(b)(6) deponent who answers "I don't know" to questions outside the scope of the 30(b)(6) notice is not penalized. Include Ninth Circuit case number in subject line. 126) is DENIED. Appellee Gordon Ranch LP answering brief due 07/21/2021. Joe Glascock is a General Manager at Winecup Gamble Ranch based in Montello, Nevada. 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. The FRSA also includes an express preemption provision: "A State may adopt or continue in force a law, regulation, or order related to railroad safety or security until the Secretary of Transportation . winecup gamble ranch. 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. [12050510] (BLS) [Entered: 03/23/2021 10:57 AM], (#4) MEDIATION CONFERENCE SCHEDULED - DIAL-IN Assessment Conference, 03/31/2021, 12:00 p.m. PACIFIC Time. 158 at 2. Transcript ordered by 08/21/2020. Id. The Court agrees with this case and holds that the 2015 amendment did not lessen Plaintiff's burden. This model is "industry standard used by the Army Corps of Engineers . The Court dismisses Plaintiff's complaint and enters judgment in favor of Defendant on its counterclaim. Ind. The Court took numerous safety precautions in the courtroom to ensure that all participants, attorneys, witnesses, and the Court staff, were protected, which included installing plexiglass partitions and implementing sanitization protocols. A reasonable party would have foreseen litigation on the horizon as soon as the parties began exchanging communications expressing their competing interpretations of the contract and the amendment. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Union Pacific's fourteenth motion in limine to bar evidence or argument about consulting experts (ECF No. Description PROPERTY HAS A PROVEN SOURCE OF AT LEAST 60,000 ACRE FEET OF WATER AND ALL RIGHTS TO THAT WATER. However, Union Pacific may qualify for punitive damages for its claims of trespass and nuisance. And Union Pacific and Razavian have had this supplemental disclosure since July 12, 2019. To submit pertinent confidential information directly to the Circuit Mediators, please use the following # link . 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. 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." The schedule is set as follows: Appellant Winecup Gamble, Inc. 150) is DENIED without prejudice. MANUAL FOR COMPLEX LITIGATION (FOURTH) 12.32 (2004). (ECF No. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA. Godwin's opinion on rerouting is admissible. Here, neither party disputes that Opperman, Holt, or Quaglieri are not retained experts, and therefore, if Winecup intends for them to present evidence under Federal Rules of Evidence 702, 703, or 705, Winecup was only required to disclose "(i) the subject matter on which the witness is expected to present evidence;" and "(ii) a summary of the facts and opinions to which the witness is expected to testify." 111-7 31-33. 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. 4. Gamble Ranch - Straddling the Wyoming & Utah Border 2019). Plaintiff had imposed an oral litigation hold that proved insufficient and a good deal of ESI went missing. The provinces allowed casino games as well as horse tracks, and video lottery terminals. Shot over two years on the spring wagon. Godwin further testified that he had reviewed Union Pacific's rerouting costs and crew costs as provided, and the number of trains per day. Of Clark v. LB Props., Inc., 315 P.3d 294, 296 (Nev. 2013) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). CV-12-1524-PHX-SRB (LOA), 2013 WL 2422691, at *3 (D. Ariz. June 3, 2013) (citations and internal quotations omitted). 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. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Union Pacific's seventeenth motion in limine to bar Winecup from providing trial testimony that contradicts its Rule 30(b)(6) witness's deposition testimony (ECF No. 132) is granted. 131) is denied without prejudice. 2. 111 at 16-17. Winecup argues that this regulation does not "substantially subsume the subject matter of" culvert size, and therefore, it cannot preempt the state common law standard. 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. 2004); see Mizzoni v. Allison, 2018 WL 3203623 at*5 (D. Nev. 2018) (citing to Zubulake). Paul Fireman was Winecup's sole shareholder and was initially a named party in the suit. [12077160] (AF) [Entered: 04/16/2021 11:36 AM], Docket(#5) MEDIATION CONFERENCE RESCHEDULED - DIAL-IN Assessment Conference, 04/14/2021, 9:30 a.m. Pacific Time (originally scheduled on 03/31/2021). Co. v. Gen. Elec. 151) is DENIED without prejudice. 160-2. For 25 years, Lindon worked at the Utah Department of Natural Resources, Division of Water Rights, Dam Safety Section, in part, creating "hydrological models to simulate hypothetical storms and floods and re-create actual events, such as rain on snowpack events, that resulted in flooding and dam failures." 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. C 06-04435 CRB, 2007 WL 963422, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Transcript ordered by 08/21/2020. As part of its holding, the Ninth Circuit noted that that the Court may consider parol evidence to resolve ambiguities in contractual language under Nevada law. 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. Additionally, the Court finds that Union Pacific's request that evidence of weather and flood conditions in watersheds other than in the "relevant one," with no definition of "relevant," is overly broad and the Court cannot make a ruling on that basis. Include Ninth Circuit case number in subject line. Terminating Sanctions Reversed After Oral Litigation Hold Goes Awry 20; ECF No. 3:17-CV-00163 | 2017-03-16, U.S. District Courts | Property | Lastly, Union Pacific motions the Court to amend the pretrial order (ECF No. ECF Nos. 640 were here. 1. 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. Campbell Industries v. M/V Gemini, 619 F.2d 24, 27 (9th Cir. 175-2. 3.) ECF No. winecup gamble ranches llc. 1. "); NAC 535.080 ("Probable maximum flood" means "a hypothetical flood whose magnitude is: 1. . 80.) Winecup Gamble, Inc. v. Gordon Ranch LP | D. Nevada | 03-01-2023 | www (ECF No. ECF No. 165. Union Pacific provides that it does not intend to proffer any evidence related to non-party Paul Fireman. Ex. ECF No. Gordon Ranch LP v Winecup Gamble Inc | 3:17-CV-00157 | Court Records 30, 2007). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Complaint (ECF No. Lindon disputes that he erred as to either point. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the clerk of the court shall close this case. And emails by a party's agent or employee, when a proper foundation is laid, that shows the statements were made within the scope of employment, may constitute opposing party statements. CSX Transp., Inc. v. Easterwood, 507 U.S. 658, 664 (1993). ECF No. Based on these classifications, Union Pacific argues that pursuant to NAC 535.240, Winecup was required to "construct, operate, and maintain," the 23 Mile dam to withstand a 100-year flood event, and the Dake dam to withstand a 1000-year flood event. 122) is granted in part and denied in part. No other issues will be entertained without leave of the Court. The People Component of Land Management Partners in the Sage Id. ; ECF No. However, pursuant to Nevada law, no information related to the financials of the defendant is permitted prior to the jury making a determination that punitive damages are warranted.
Washington County Police Report Lookup,
Line Of Duty Interview Beep,
Beth Djalali Husband Obituary,
Allen Iverson New Wife,
Herdfans Message Board,
Articles W