How Old Was Esther Rolle On Good Times, Articles W

Work Experience Gamble Ranch Manager Winecup Gamble Ranch 2015-2023 Board Memberships & Affiliations Board Member Western Landowners Alliance 2019-2021 Advisory Board Member Seventh Generation Institute 2019-2021 View James Rogers's full profile 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)). Appellee Gordon Ranch LP answering brief due 11/30/2020. The Court finds that multiple exhibit binders each with a few hundred exhibits is impractical and unnecessary given the electronics available in the courtroom. 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. Union Pacific does not allege a claim for gross negligence, but simply makes a claim for negligence. 15, 2021) (unpublished), the Ninth Circuit reversed entry of terminating sanctions, vacated the judgment, and remanded for further proceedings. 3:17-cv-00477-LRH-CLB (D. Nev. Dec. 4, 2020). The Court agrees with Winecup. First, the evidence shows that the ESI was deleted after a duty arose to preserve it. Winecup motions the Court to exclude Union Pacific from arguing or presenting evidence that NAC 535.240 applies to the 23 Mile or Dake dams. 44. (ECF No. 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. 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. Winecup Gamble, Inc. v. Ranch | 3:17-cv-00163-ART-CSD | D. Nev 2. Union Pacific has twice amended its complaint (ECF Nos. Though not addressed in Winecup's motion, Union Pacific argues that it also pleads violations of NRS 535.010 to support its negligence per se theory. ECF No. at 432. When a party challenges the correctness of the opposing party's expert's testimony, "its recourse is not exclusion of the testimony, but, rather, refutation of it by cross-examination and by the testimony of its own expert witnesses." 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." See order for instructions and details. (Id.) 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."). 18. (Id.). Id. ECF No. The Court therefore denies Winecup's fifth motion in limine without prejudice and reserves ruling on such evidence until it can be adjudged in the context of trial. [11769734] [20-16411] (Jordan, David) [Entered: 07/28/2020 03:34 PM], Docket(#1) DOCKETED CAUSE AND ENTERED APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL. 401. Union Pacific seeks to exclude Lindon's criticisms of its hydrology expert, Daryoush Razavian, regarding soil saturation. 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. The Ninth Circuit has made clear that district courts "should generally allow amendments of pretrial orders provided three criteria are met: (1) no substantial injury will be occasioned to the opposing party, (2) refusal to allow the amendment might result in injustice to the movant, and (3) the inconvenience to the court is slight." Motions in limine should not be used to resolve factual disputes or to weigh evidence, and evidence should not be excluded prior to trial unless the "evidence is clearly inadmissible on all potential grounds." 175), are denied without prejudice. See Luce v. United States, 469 U.S. 38, 41 (1984). Union Pacific concedes that Lindon is a qualified expert in hydrology. Union Pacific also requests the Court take judicial notice of seven exhibits. Transcript due 09/21/2020. 149) is granted. This communication will be kept confidential, if requested, and should not be filed with the court. ECF No. 160-3 at 44. The Court finds that NAC 535.240 is not a "first-time" interpretive regulation. of San Bernardino, 750 F. App'x 534, 537 (9th Cir. 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. ), The original terms of the agreement contained a comprehensive risk-of-loss provision. The duty to preserve commenced at least by this date. 112.) After the sale fell through, both parties filed suit, arguing that they were entitled to Gordon Ranch's earnest money deposit pursuant to the terms of the parties' purchase and sale agreement, as amended by the parties in December 2016. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 32(a)(8), the deposition from an earlier action "may be used in a later action involving the same subject matter between the same parties." 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. Moreover, the Court finds that it would be illogical that a plaintiff would not be preempted from suing Union Pacific under a negligence theory for failure to maintain appropriate drainage, but that a defendant would not be able to assert an affirmative defense of contributory negligence for the same alleged failure. 20; ECF No. 151. R. EVID. 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. ECF Nos. Lindon disputes that he erred as to either point. James Rogers Email & Phone Number | ZoomInfo To submit pertinent confidential information directly to the Circuit Mediators, please use the following # link . See Ambrosini v. Labarraque, 101 F.3d 129, 141 (D.C. Cir. When a moving party satisfies these three prerequisites, two kinds of sanctions are available, but each requires proof of an additional element. The Court considers the overall statutory and regulatory scheme and finds that the hazard classifications assigned by the State Engineer must be considered within the context of NAC 535.240. (See, e.g., ECF No. ii. 149) is GRANTED. 158 at 2. 7. (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.[12043697]. WINECUP GAMBLE, INC., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. GORDON RANCH LP, Defendant-Appellant. 2001) (citation omitted). However, they do not currently have these texts messages, and Mr. Fireman admitted that no one had searched his phone to attempt to preserve the text messages. ECF No. 122) is granted in part and denied in part. A at 43:24-25), he also admits that the emails could have been deleted later by receiving a new computer or by failing to change his backup setting (Id. However, there is also evidence in the record that DWR instructed Winecup to complete specific tasks that were not done: The 1996 inspection report for 23 Mile dam indicates that the "wing walls at the downstream invert should have the concrete repaired," and this repair was again noted in the 2003 report.