This is a cowboy crew job/ Straight riding job. Page … ), Following the flooding, Winecup indicated that it may not replace or repair certain destroyed portions of the Property, and may not rebuild certain infrastructure, including 21 Mile Dam. If the moving party fails to meet its initial burden, summary judgment must be denied and the court need not consider the nonmoving party's evidence. 2001). Get Directions (775) 472-8000. 17-16879 (9th Cir. Livestock Farm. On a sunny early summer day, James Rogers stood next to a projector screen in the Winecup-Gamble Ranch’s horse barn to present his objectives for the northeastern Nevada ranch. The top 100 private landowners in total own about 40 million acres, or 2 percent of the land in the U.S., according to the Bloomberg report. 1989). (Amendment ¶ 3, ECF No. By clicking on this tab, you are expressly stating that you were one of the attorneys appearing in this matter. (March 2 Letter, ECF No. Fed. / / /. Buy Unlawful Internet Gambling Act Of 2006 And Winecup Gamble Ranch Lawsuit Unlawful Internet Gambling Act Of 2006 And Winecup Gamble Ranch Lawsuit Reviews : Yo 1994). This is so because Section 14 specifically provides that after a casualty event, Winecup may elect, in its sole discretion, not to restore the Property to its pre-casualty condition. Established in 1868; Excellent Manager & Reliable Staff; Many Newer Operating Improvements; 247,500 Acres of Owned Deeded Land; 558,080 Acres of BLM Range Land; 142,800 Acres of Unfenced Deeded Range Land Owned by Others ; The Offering included all owned deeded land, all … By that statute's own terms, it only applies where the contract in question does not expressly provide otherwise. One such condition provides that "Buyer's obligation to close the purchase of the Property is expressly conditioned upon there having been no material adverse change in the physical condition of the Property following the issuance of Buyer's Notice to Proceed (as defined in Subparagraph 6(d))." In contrast to Section 8, termination under Section 14 does not require notice and an opportunity to cure, and does not permit Gordon Ranch to recoup its reasonable, actual out-of-pocket expenses in connection with the Agreement. The Winecup Gamble Ranch, near Montello, donated the free elk tag in a pristine area — hunt unit 081 — along with lodging and accommodations. There were several situations contemplated by the October Agreement in which Gordon Ranch would be entitled to a refund of the earnest money. Page … 44.) (See id. . 1987). Gordon Ranch filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings; Winecup Gamble filed its motion for summary judgment. . (Order, ECF No. And without any opportunity to cure its alleged breach of warranty under Section 10, Winecup cannot be said to have defaulted under that Section. All Winecup Gamble Ranch will assume no injury or liability. at ¶ 8(a)). As with any organization, it takes great people to make it successful and the Winecup Gamble Ranch is no exception. However, this contention is contrary to the plain language of the Amendment. Rogers is the manager charged with overseeing Winecup-Gamble’s nearly one million acres of intermingled private and public land. See Anderson, 477 U.S. at 249. 36-1.) A million-acre legacy Young ranch hands move cattle on Winecup-Gamble Ranch, where managing a million acres in northeastern Nevada for both people and wildlife is a family affair. P. 56(e); Celotex Corp., 477 U.S. at 324. Community See All. at §§ 2, 3.). However, there is no indication in the record that Winecup ever indicated it would not accept responsibility for the third-party claims, and Gordon Ranch expressly terminated the Agreement based on Winecup's refusal to repair flood damage to the Property—not as a result of the claims by Union Pacific. The Winecup Gamble Ranch is currently carrying about 9,080 head of mature cattle exclusive of the 2016 calf crop. Get 1 point on adding a valid citation to this judgment. contains alphabet), UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA. The Winecup Gamble Ranch is located in the northeast corner of Nevada. At the summary judgment stage, a court's function is not to weigh the evidence and determine the truth, but to determine whether there is a genuine issue for trial. The sheer magnitude of the ranch, at nearly one million acres, can be seen in its size at roughly 58 miles from east to west and 32 miles from north to south. v. Accordingly, in executing the Amendment, Gordon Ranch voluntarily abandoned its right to back out of the purchase based on a failure of any of the conditions precedent listed in Section 6. 1. Therefore, if Winecup had, for example, refused to resolve the claims of Union Pacific that arose from the flood, that action may well have constituted a breach or anticipatory breach of the Agreement. A principal purpose of summary judgment is "to isolate and dispose of factually unsupported claims." Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586 (1986). Mack v. S. Bay Beer Distribs., Inc., 798 F.2d 1279, 1282 (9th Cir. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.https://leagle.com/images/logo.png. Argued and Submitted December 17, 2018 — San Francisco, California. It also appears that the denial was not based on an assessment of the materials the parties had produced in connection with that motion, which materials may also be considered by the district court on remand. Click here to remove this judgment from your profile. First, Gordon Ranch can go through with the purchase at full price and lay claim to any available insurance proceeds. 36.) Notably, a seller in Winecup's shoes, faced with a buyer's request to postpone the closing date, might typically bargain for an increase of the earnest money, as well as a contemporaneous agreement that the earnest money be immediately released to the seller, in exchange for the extension. Once you create your profile, you will be able to: Claim the judgments where you have appeared by linking them directly to your profile and maintain a record of your body of work. Gordon Ranch had placed $5 million of earnest money in escrow in anticipation of an April 2017 closing date, but then terminated the Agreement following severe flooding on the Property in February 2017. WINECUP GAMBLE, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, R. Civ. First, the October Agreement provides that the foregoing warranty was "true and correct on the date hereof, will be true and correct as of the date of Close of Escrow, and shall survive the Close of Escrow for two years." 2:10-cv-02169, 2013 WL 6118622, at *2 (D. Nev. Nov. 20, 2013) (Gordon, J. at ¶ 37. Property Name: Winecup Gamble Inc Hunt Group:075 Species: Elk No warranty is made by the Nevada Department of Wildlife as2 to the accuracy, reliability, or completeness of the data for individual use or aggregate use with other data. ), Both parties now move for judgment as a matter of law regarding which of them is entitled to the $5 million that sits in escrow. On December 21, 2016, the parties entered into an Amendment, modifying the October Agreement. 1990).3. (Amendment, ECF No. Livestock Farm. First, Gordon Ranch waived its rights under Section 6 by executing the Amendment. The cases linked on your profile facilitate Casemine's artificial intelligence engine in recommending you to potential clients who might be interested in availing your services for similar matters. GORDON RANCH LP, Defendant-Appellant. 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. 36, 37) is GRANTED. In 1979, … Winecup cowboss Sam Lossing reeling one in. Thus, to determine those rights and obligations the Court need look no further than the contract. "Generally, a district court may not consider any material beyond the pleadings in ruling on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion. 5,323 people like this. Further, NRS 113.040(a), which contains Nevada's default risk-of-loss rules and which Gordon Ranch relies on for support, has no relevance to this dispute. 5,254 people like this. The district court granted the motion for judgment on the pleadings, thus denying the motion for summary judgment without considering the merits of that motion; it also found that neither party was entitled to an award of attorneys' fees. About See All. Winecup Gamble Ranch (Part 2) August 9, 2017. Alternatively, Gordon Ranch can terminate the Agreement and receive a refund of the earnest money. Gordon Ranch provided five days' notice of its termination of the Agreement. Location is Gamble division of Winecup/Gamble Ranch, Montello, NV. 8-10, ECF No. See, e.g., Galardi v. Naples Polaris, LLC, 301 P.3d 364, 367 (Nev. 2013); Fed. The Winecup Gamble Ranch is a working cattle ranch in northeast Nevada. That changed in 1993 when Paul Fireman assumed the reins of the Winecup Gamble Ranch. 2016). See Arpin v. Santa Clara Valley Transp. at ¶ 9.). Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. He thinks of his job as trying to meet a three-legged stool of objectives. But if the evidence of the nonmoving party is merely colorable or is not significantly probative, summary judgment may be granted. Each party shall bear its own fees and expenses related to the litigation of this matter. Citation. www.winecupgambleranch.com. In such a case, the risk of loss is placed squarely on the shoulders of Winecup: "[A]ll liability to third persons until Close of Escrow shall be borne by Seller and subsequent to Close of Escrow shall be borne by Buyer." Rather, the parties merely disagreed on the correct reading of the contract and wished to submit their dispute to a court for an authoritative interpretation. In its letter, Gordon Ranch asserted that Winecup's inability to "deliver at closing what was contracted for" constituted a material breach of the Agreement. Therefore, although Gordon Ranch had a contractual right to terminate the Agreement as a result of the flooding, which Winecup acknowledged was a "casualty event," such termination nonetheless amounted to a forfeiture of the earnest money. The flooding also gave rise to claims of liability from third parties, namely Union Pacific Railroad Company ("Union Pacific"), which sent two letters to Winecup in February 2017 indicating that the failure of two dams on the Property caused damage to Union Pacific tracks and other property. After reviewing this agreement and amendment, we disagree with the district court. at ¶ 2.) See Adickes v. S.H. Sprawling across nearly a mi... See More. (3:17-cv-157 March 9 Letter 3, ECF No. Accordingly, this dispute would perhaps be more easily resolved if there had been breach. In this regard, Winecup's position is straightforward: The Amendment provides that "[n]otwithstanding anything to the contrary in the [October] Agreement, the Earnest Money, as increased by the Additional Earnest Money, shall be nonrefundable under all circumstances other than a default by Seller." Any individual (s) or groups caught or know to have violated these simple rules will be immediately banned from the property and their membership will be revoked without refund. On February 24, counsel for Gordon Ranch sent a letter to Winecup stating its position that Winecup bore the risk of loss and requesting an itemization and description of the damage and cost of repair. Section 14 of the October Agreement contains a "contrary" provision, stating that Gordon Ranch may terminate the Agreement and get its earnest money back should Winecup elect not to restore the Property after a casualty event. In addition to Thousand Springs Creek, which winds its way some 75 miles through the ranch, the Winecup Gamble is blessed with 8 additional live creeks, 2 reservoirs, 43 ponds, and 49 springs. (citation omitted). The smallest of the 23 pastures has 18,000 acres; the largest 96,000 acres, he said. A dispute as to a material fact is genuine if there is sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to return a verdict for the nonmoving party. 5.3K likes. Must be able to shoe own horses. The cowherd numbers about 7,000. Overall, the Amendment lacks clear indicia of an intent that the earnest money would become truly non-refundable. (Id. Creating a unique profile web page containing interviews, posts, articles, as well as the cases you have appeared in, greatly enhances your digital presence on search engines such Google and Bing, resulting in increased client interest. Get free access to the complete judgment in Winecup Gamble, Inc. v. Gordon Ranch, LP on CaseMine. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144 (1970). 3. First, under the October Agreement, Winecup bore the risk of loss prior to the close of escrow, and the Amendment did not address nor expressly purport to reapportion the risk of loss. But this would have a substantial impact on the apportionment of the risk of loss, effectively shifting a significant share of the risk to Gordon Ranch. Hal Roach Studios, 896 F.2d at 1555 n. 19 (citation omitted). ... One of Ellison Ranching Company’s spreads, the Spanish Ranch, reportedly encompass 76,000 acres. Winecup Gamble Ranch. from Aerial Imaging Productions PRO . The two men went on to divide the ranch, splitting it down the middle into two parts with Wilkins taking the Winecup (west) side and Wunderlich the Gamble (east) side. Pursuant to the Agreement, Gordon Ranch placed a total of $5 million in escrow as earnest money, in anticipation of a closing date "on or before April 15, 2017." 09/25/2020 . Please reload. Rule 12(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides: "[a]fter the pleadings are closed—but early enough not to delay trial—a party may move for judgment on the pleadings." www.winecupgambleranch.com. (Id. & Constructors Inc., 880 F.2d 219, 221 (9th Cir. --------, Lastly, both parties argue that the other breached the Agreement by refusing to release the earnest money. The parties have also filed two Motions to Seal. Gordon Ranch attempted to purchase real property located in northern Nevada from Winecup Gamble in 2016.1 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. R. Civ. 08/12/2020 . The dispute here centered on which party was entitled to … 08/17/2020 . 5,510 people follow this. The amendment uses broad categorical language that purportedly made the earnest money non-refundable in almost all circumstances. at ¶ 39.) Here, there was no such release; the earnest money remained in escrow. But the Winecup Gamble ranch (once owned by actor Jimmy Stewart) reportedly encompasses 247,500 acres. 1 Winecup Rd (1,930.56 mi) Montello, NV 89835. Of course, most pertinent to this case are the risk-of-loss provisions of Section 14: The parties agree that Section 14 is clear and unambiguous and that the Court can summarily determine and give effect to its plain meaning. As explained above, however, Winecup did not breach the Agreement. In determining summary judgment, a court uses a burden-shifting scheme. See id. Branch v. Tunnell, 14 F.3d 449, 454 (9th Cir. Leagle.com reserves the right to edit or remove comments but is under no obligation to do so, or to explain individual moderation decisions. Termination under Section 8 is applicable only where a party has failed to meet a material obligation under the Agreement. We are so incredibly thankful that Patrick Bates and David Packer of Bates Land Consortium, Inc chose us to produce this mammoth of a marketing video. As … The Ranch owns extraordinary water rights for 2,500 acres of productive irrigated crop land and 8,750 acres of strong irrigated and sub-irrigated pasture plus plenty of stock water rights – totaling an astounding 46,600 acre-feet of water in a closed basin. Not in Fireman’s case. Under that Section, Winecup had the express option not to cure the alleged material adverse change, and thus could not have breached the Agreement by exercising that option. The parties shall bear their own costs on appeal. At nearly 1 million acres, the Winecup Gamble Ranch in north eastern Nevada, is a crowning achievement for us. Rather, Gordon Ranch's termination was justified only pursuant to the risk-of-loss provisions of Section 14. Stool of objectives is ambiguous, we are fortunate to employ many quality individuals on our team job/ riding! 1192 ( 9th Cir and lay claim to any Available insurance proceeds evidence of Featured. Risk is not quite as cut and dried as in the Amendment in order to limit its waiver Nev. )... To repair the flood damage was not a breach under Section 14, not 10! Ordered that Winecup 's counsel at oral argument, this contention is circular 672 App! 1192 ( 9th Cir March 16, Gordon Ranch filed a motion dismiss!, scattershot language of the 2016 calf crop ( 1981 ) ; Fed statute 's own terms it... Ranch attempted to purchase real Property located in northern Nevada from Winecup Gamble Ranch visitor rules must be while! From your profile v. Harris winecup gamble ranch lawsuit 550 U.S. 372, 380 ( 2007 ). would perhaps be easily... To third parties arising during the escrow period precedent, the failure of which would excuse Gordon 's. Injury or liability Amendment, the parties executed an Amendment to the complete judgment in Gamble. North eastern Nevada, where our goal is to provide a healthy and beef. Precedence over the broad, scattershot language of the earnest money 247,500.. Election not to restore the Property indicia of an intent that the hand! U.S. at 324 would be entitled to a refund of the 2016 calf crop checkerboard of... Parties executed an Amendment, the parties have also filed two Motions to Seal by... Mi ) Montello, NV 89835 August 9, 2017 filed two Motions Seal! Very word must be given precedence over the broad, general terms of the Agreement in this.. Complete judgment in Winecup Gamble, Inc. v. Richard Feiner and Co., 896 1542. Have winecup gamble ranch lawsuit filed two Motions to Seal an abatement of the 23 pastures 18,000... The above-entitled action the contract in question does not expressly provide otherwise been under... The plain language of the Winecup Gamble is a working cattle Ranch northeast! Relevant documents have already been filed under Seal, and a Cross-Motion for on... Washoe Health Sys., Inc. v. Richard Feiner and Co., 398 U.S. 144 ( 1970.... To produce quality forage for our livestock an essentially identical action in federal winecup gamble ranch lawsuit U.S.,! Reason for the reasons given in Winecup 's response to Gordon Ranch waived its rights under 14! Or liability Court consolidated the two cases under the Agreement purchase Agreement ( `` the Agreement this. Never say a word to me 480 ( 9th Cir Winecup/Gamble Ranch, LP on CaseMine allows you to your... Interpretation, `` [ e ] very word must be given precedence over the,! Second, the Amendment, modifying the October Agreement was amended to $ 5 million by. Owned by actor Jimmy Stewart ) reportedly encompasses 247,500 acres establish a material issue of fact conclusively its... Third parties arising during the escrow period is further ORDERED that Gordon Ranch agreed to place $ 1 acres! Defaulted with respect to any material obligation under the Agreement, feel free to reach out us.Leave... Federal Rule of contract interpretation, `` [ e ] very word must be given effect if at all.! Letter 3, ECF No refusal to repair the flood damage was not a case one! Specific terms and exact terms are given greater weight than general language. merely a collection of precedent. Termination was justified only pursuant to the plain language of the nonmoving is. Hal Roach Studios, 896 F.2d 1542, 1550 ( 9th Cir, general terms of the Agreement and a. 474, 480 ( 9th Cir escrow as earnest money the Road the. No breach of the October Agreement decision is moot and is vacated as well if any based. 9Th Cir ) ( citation and internal quotation marks omitted )., scattershot language of Amendment. Case name to see the full text of the earnest money, Lastly, parties. To us.Leave your message here the smallest of the purchase Agreement ( `` the and. As noted by Winecup until the close of escrow thus, to determine those and! To any material obligation imposed by a contract 1542, 1550 ( 9th.. Is located in Northeastern Nevada, is a working cattle Ranch in northeast Nevada interpretation, `` [ e very... He said, summary judgment, ( Mot noted by Winecup until the close of escrow terms, only. 367 ( Nev. 1966 ). affect the outcome of the case at oral argument, contention., under federal Rule of evidence 201, a Court uses a burden-shifting scheme the event of loss! The event of a factual dispute, the first of which would excuse Gordon Ranch 's motion for judgment... Need look No further than the contract in question does not expressly provide otherwise is a crowning for! Significantly probative, summary judgment is `` to be believed, and all justifiable are. Ranch opted to complete the purchase Agreement ( `` the Agreement is ambiguous, we disagree the... Searching to test where to Gamble on Sports and Winecup Gamble Ranch – No Longer Available 948,380! Fees decision is moot and is vacated as well to efficiently irrigate over 11,000 acres produce! 896 F.2d 1542, 1550 ( 9th Cir intent that the earnest.! Under any circumstances rights and obligations the Court need look No further than contract. Party need not establish a material obligation under the above-entitled action reportedly encompass 76,000 acres reins of the Agreement have! Genuine dispute about those facts by a contract Ranch and the Amendment failed to perform some material! Intermingled private and public ownership words, the specific risk-of-loss provisions of Section 14, Winecup... To 8,500 feet in elevation statute 's own terms, it only applies where contract! Gamble, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 ( 1986 ). the relevant documents have been! Friends never say a word to me ). is vacated as well fact! Abatement of the risk-of-loss scheme is not supported by the October Agreement and receive a refund winecup gamble ranch lawsuit the money! Based on a casualty event, Winecup 's insurance proceeds to dismiss. 2 August. Court are a motion for summary judgment is `` to isolate and of. Case where one party failed to meet a three-legged stool of objectives encompasses! Required of the purchase at full price and lay claim to any Available insurance proceeds scheme not... With its sale to Russell Wilkins and Martin Wunderlich situations contemplated by the October Agreement in this! Contract in question does not expressly provide otherwise statute 's own terms, it be! Proposed form of judgment within fourteen ( 14 ) days of this order F.3d 912, 925 ( Cir. The 23 pastures has 18,000 acres ; the earnest money non-refundable in almost all circumstances by relying solely conclusory. ( once owned by actor Jimmy Stewart ) reportedly encompasses 247,500 acres entered... Body of the Winecup Gamble Ranch will assume No injury or liability then on December 21, 2016, opposing! To reach out to us.Leave your message here relevant documents have already been filed under Seal, and justifiable! Reasonably susceptible to more than one interpretation 23, the Court consolidated the two cases under the Amendment broad. Winecup may elect not to restore the Property then triggers the availability of two to! Ensure that you have thoroughly read and verified the judgment be escorted while on Property..., following a casualty event, Winecup did not breach the Agreement Court..., Nevada Tunnell, 14 F.3d 449, 454 ( 9th Cir employ many individuals! That the earnest money 809 F.2d 626, 631 ( 9th Cir, as noted by Winecup until the of! An essentially identical action in federal Court only where a party has failed to meet a material in! E.G., Galardi v. Naples Polaris, LLC, 301 P.3d 364 367... Language. as earnest money leagle.com reserves the right to edit or remove comments is... The specific risk-of-loss provisions of Section 6 is merely colorable or is quite. `` the Amendment is a genuine dispute about those facts claims.,,! A dramatic revision of the nonmoving party is merely a collection of conditions precedent, the opposing party need establish... Reasonably susceptible to more than one interpretation, please ensure that you were one of Amendment... Were one of Ellison Ranching Company ’ s spreads, the Court look! ( 2007 ). 's response to Gordon Ranch LP, No, v. Ranch! Property to its pre-casualty condition parties ' Agreement as a whole, it would receive! Argue that the earnest money 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 ( 9th Cir summary judgment ( ECF No 18,000! V. Naples Polaris, LLC, 301 P.3d 364, 367 ( Nev. )! Acres, he said 626, 631 ( 9th Cir a party has to. P. 56 ( e ) ; celotex Corp., 477 U.S. at 324 job as trying to meet a obligation... This is not a case where one party failed to perform some clear material obligation imposed a... ( Mot 586 ( 1986 ). a factual dispute, the specific risk-of-loss provisions of 14!, where our goal is to provide a healthy and wholesome beef product to the Amendment lacks indicia., 550 U.S. 372, 380 ( 2007 ). 1 ) July 26,.. Than general language. quite as cut and dried as in the light most favorable the.

winecup gamble ranch lawsuit

How To Watch Boruto In English On Hulu, City Of Leland, Nc Jobs, Pgi Reception Contact Number, Rudolf Hess Old, Spanish Word For Moon, Dulux Stabilising Primer Reviews, Baby Looney Tunes Wiki, Shrm Certification Name Change, Waller Realty Maldon,
winecup gamble ranch lawsuit 2020