winecup gamble ranch lawsuit

WINECUP GAMBLE, INC., a Nevada corporation, Plaintiff, v. GORDON RANCH, LP, a Texas limited partnership, Defendant. 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. (See, e.g., ECF No. It's as wide and wild and complicated a landscape as there is in today's West. ECF No. A 44:19-45:1.) Date of service: 07/29/2020. See, e.g., Mallard Bay Drilling, Inc. v. Bessard, 145 F.R.D. Cases involving other real property matters not classified elsewhere, (#6) The Mediation Questionnaire for this case was filed on 07/29/2020. 37, 89), to which Winecup has answered (ECF No. Additionally, the Ninth Circuit did not rule on whether Plaintiff's interpretation of the contract constituted a penalty clause. ECF No. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Winecup's fifth motion in limine to exclude evidence and argument related to an Emergency Action Plan for the Dake Dam (ECF No. 20103(a). Union Pacific argues that due to the complexity of the Oroville Dam failure, evidence and argument on the topic would result in a "mini trial," and as the weather and flooding occurred outside the relevant watershed, the evidence is irrelevant. Rather, Union Pacific argues that its expert's rerouting analysis was more correct than Godwin's opinion based on these considerations. This statute, titled Construction, reconstruction or alteration of dam: Permit to appropriate water required; notice; approval of plans and specifications; inspection; exemptions; penalty, provides: Union Pacific further argues that Winecup "abandoned" the Dake dam which constitutes an "alteration" within the meaning of NRS 535.010 and required Winecup to submit a plan for approval, which it failed to do. [11769734] [20-16411] (Jordan, David) [Entered: 07/28/2020 03:34 PM], Docket(#1) DOCKETED CAUSE AND ENTERED APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL. ECF No. 3:17-CV-00477 | 2017-08-10, U.S. District Courts | Property | 6. [21-15415] (AD) [Entered: 03/16/2021 06:44 PM], Docket(#2) Filed (ECF) Appellant Winecup Gamble, Inc. 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. ECF No. See ECF No. 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." 117 Ex. Union Pacific's combined fifth and sixth motion in limine to bar two opinions of Derek Godwin (ECF No. Defendant rejected the property and demanded a return of its earnest money arguing (1) that the amendment did not change the original contract provision that placed the risk of loss on Plaintiff's shoulders and (2) that Plaintiff's interpretation of the contract provision is not a liquidated damages clause but an unenforceable penalty clause as five million dollars was not an accurate prediction of Plaintiff's damages. 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"). Alternatively, even if the regulation did preempt the state common law standard, the federal standard would apply and not preclude the defense itself. Winecup opposes. [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). [11762326] (JBS) [Entered: 07/22/2020 02:44 PM]. AnyLaw is the FREE and Friendly legal research service that gives you unlimited access to massive amounts of valuable legal data. These facts are sufficient for the Court to draw an inference that Mr. Worden acted intentionally. 111. While Plaintiff claims that it orally informed Mr. Worden to preserve ESI, this is woefully inadequate as discussed above, but evinces that Plaintiff and Mr. Worden knew they had a duty to preserve the ESI. 18-16463-CIV-SELTZER, 2018 WL 4693526, at *1 (S.D. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2)(A) provides: "a party must disclose to the other parties the identity of any witness it may use at trial to present evidence under Federal Rules of Evidence 702, 703, or 705." At the time of this writing, the undersigned has presided over one criminal in-person jury trial since the COVID-19 lockdown orders went into effect in early March 2020, which included hearing from both witnesses in-person and via ZOOM video conferencing. The Investment Issue: Winecup Gamble Ranch - The Land Report Id. 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. 55.) The briefing schedule previously set by the court remains in effect. Gordon Ranch attempted to purchase real property located in northern Nevada from Winecup Gamble in 2016. NAC 535.140. Moreover. Gallo v. Union Pacific R.R. 801(d)(2)(D). In the court application, the franchisees are . Accordingly, the Court finds that section 213.33 does not preempt Winecup's affirmative defense. A at 14.) If expert opinions are not disclosed, "the party is not allowed to use that information or witness to supply evidence .

Kola Superdeep Borehole Sounds Explained, Harford County Police Blotter Aegis, Greg Tramontin Family, Rust How Many Spears For Stone Floor, Handsome 38 Year Old Man, Articles W