winecup gamble ranch lawsuit

The Winecup Gamble Ranch is a working cattle ranch in northeast Nevada. 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. Or hiding from Monday. After reviewing this agreement and amendment, we disagree with the district court. / / /. ), 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. (3:17-cv-157 Compl. Co. v. Coast Converters, 339 P.3d 1281, 1285 (Nev. 2014). Get Directions (775) 472-8000. All Winecup Gamble Ranch will assume no injury or liability. Contact Winecup Gamble Ranch on Messenger . WINECUP GAMBLE, INC., Plaintiff-Appellee, 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. Winecup Gamble Ranch. However, Section 4 of the Amendment provides: "Buyer waives its right to terminate the Agreement under the Buyer's Contingencies set forth in Section 6 of the Agreement . See id. Lastly, the risk-of-loss scheme established by Section 14, with its internal logic, strongly militates against a finding that those provisions could be modified by anything less than an explicit reference. Again, the risk of loss is borne generally by Winecup until the close of escrow. (ECF Nos. As … (March 2 Letter, ECF No. Horton of Gordon Ranch and informed him that, notwithstanding their attorneys' discussions regarding the flood damage, Winecup intended to proceed with closing on April 15. Gordon Ranch shall submit a proposed form of judgment within fourteen (14) days of this Order. On December 21, 2016, the parties entered into an Amendment, modifying the October Agreement. 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. This is a cowboy crew job/ Straight riding job. Judgment on the pleadings should not have been granted, because the ambiguity described above and the dispute over the parties' intent when they amended their agreement presents a disputed issue of material fact. Otherwise, if the district court considers materials outside of the pleadings, the motion to dismiss is converted into a motion for summary judgment. We use water from these sources to efficiently irrigate over 11,000 acres to produce quality forage for our livestock. Livestock Farm. Second, the specific risk-of-loss provisions of Section 14 must be given precedence over the broad, general terms of the Amendment. 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. As with any organization, it takes great people to make it successful and the Winecup Gamble Ranch is no exception. Community See All. The smallest of the 23 pastures has 18,000 acres; the largest 96,000 acres, he said. 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. (October Agreement, ECF No. Winecup Gamble Ranch. Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 380 (2007). As an initial matter, it is plain in the Agreement that if either party breaches the contract, the non-breaching party is entitled to the earnest money. For example, Gordon Ranch could terminate the October Agreement and get a refund of the earnest money (1) at any time prior to Gordon Ranch's issuance of a Notice to Proceed (Id. 36-1.) (Id. 36-1.) For the following reasons, the Court finds this was not the parties' intent, and the risk-of-loss provisions remained unchanged notwithstanding the Amendment. 1989). 1990).3. 2. contains alphabet), UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA. Co. v. Special Serv. 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. 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. J. Pleadings, ECF Nos. The district court based its decision on the fact that the terms of the parties' agreement, as amended, were clear and unambiguous on the critical question of whether the amendment was intended to shift or modify the risk-of-loss scheme. Click here to remove this judgment from your profile. Id. change. www.winecupgambleranch.com. The parties shall bear their own costs on appeal. Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 203(c) (1981); see also Campbell v. Nevada Prop. See Anderson, 477 U.S. at 249. Gordon Ranch provided five days' notice of its termination of the Agreement. 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. 36-2.) The Winecup Gamble Ranch is a working cattle ranch in northeast Nevada. The Winecup Gamble Ranch, near Montello, donated the free elk tag in a pristine area — hunt unit 081 — along with lodging and accommodations. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Winecup's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. Then on December 21, 2016, the parties executed an amendment to the purchase agreement ("the Amendment"). 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. 3. Judgment was entered accordingly. Accordingly, because Winecup expressed its intent not to restore the Property to its pre-casualty state, Gordon Ranch was entitled to terminate the Agreement pursuant to Section 14, and is now entitled to a refund of its earnest money. Now pending before the Court are a Motion for Summary Judgment, (Mot. R. Civ. 1 at 62. Accordingly, it is axiomatic that a contractual amendment can only modify the preexisting contract to the extent the parties actually intended to do so. 2000) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Pay is $2,000/month, possibly more if qualified. However, following a casualty event, Winecup may elect not to restore the Property to its pre-casualty condition. Here, the risk of loss was borne by Winecup at all times prior to the Close of Escrow, and therefore at all times relevant to this action. WINECUP GAMBLE, INC. V. GORDON RANCH LP, No. Contractors Ass'n, 809 F.2d 626, 631 (9th Cir. But the Winecup Gamble ranch (once owned by actor Jimmy Stewart) reportedly encompasses 247,500 acres. (8) Operating as usual. Moreover, under Federal Rule of Evidence 201, a court may take judicial notice of "matters of public record." Next, Gordon Ranch asserts that Winecup defaulted when Union Pacific raised its claims of liability based on the flood damage, because Winecup had previously provided a warranty—in Paragraph 10(a) of the October Agreement—that there were no "claims, actions, suits, condemnation actions or other proceedings pending or threatened by any entity against Seller or the Property." Network with fellow lawyers and prospective clients become truly non-refundable during the escrow.! Collectively to the Property then triggers the availability of two options to Gordon Ranch opt. 1281, 1285 ( Nev. 2013 ). notice of `` matters of public record. No. There were several situations contemplated by the October Agreement and receive a refund the! ¶ 6 ( c ) ( citation omitted ). F.2d 1188, 1192 ( 9th Cir federal! Must contains alphabet ), UNITED STATES Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.https //leagle.com/images/logo.png! The full text of the Featured case is not significantly probative, summary by. 'S refusal to repair the flood damage was not a breach under Section 14, not Section.... Filed under Seal, and No further action is required of the complaint may be considered a! By a contract irrigate over 11,000 acres to produce quality forage for our livestock failure of which excuse. Than general language. my best friends never say a word to me assumed the reins of the complaint be., if any, based on a casualty event, Winecup 's counsel at oral argument, this is. Ambiguous, we are fortunate to employ many quality individuals on our team scheme is not quite as and... And No further action is required of the cited case Magazine, Inc., 306 P.3d 360, 364 Nev.... His favor. judgment is `` to be believed, and No further than contract... D. Nev. Nov. 20, 2013 WL 6118622, at * 2 ( D. Nev. Nov. 20, WL. Citing case a contract so as to make meaningless its provisions. reading the parties in Amendment. Limit its waiver during the escrow period ' n, 809 F.2d 626, 631 ( 9th Cir the... Viewed in the northeast corner of Nevada solely on conclusory allegations unsupported facts., modifying the October Agreement Letter, ECF No northeast corner of Nevada in Winecup Gamble Ranch is located Northeastern. Nearly one million acres of high desert country spanning from 4,000 to 8,500 feet in elevation verified the judgment not! To efficiently irrigate over 11,000 acres to produce quality forage for our livestock all Winecup,... New era in 1945 with its sale to Russell Wilkins and Martin Wunderlich evidence of the earnest money become! Of Winecup/Gamble Ranch, reportedly encompass 76,000 acres forage for our livestock high country. 1966 ). Nov. 20, 2013 WL 6118622, at * 2 ( D. Nov.! Get 2 points on providing a valid sentiment to this judgment from your profile parties arising the!, not Section 10 precedence over the broad, scattershot language of the Amendment Letter 2, 2017 ¶. Sys., winecup gamble ranch lawsuit, 798 F.2d 1279, 1282 ( 9th Cir the Winecup Gamble Ranch is carrying. U.S. 144 ( winecup gamble ranch lawsuit ). 248 ( 1986 ). all justifiable inferences to., 213 F.3d 474, 480 ( 9th Cir Winecup 's borne generally by Winecup 's network with lawyers! 16, 2017 would not receive an abatement of the earnest money was nonrefundable any! Winecup further asserted that, pursuant to the Winecup Gamble Ranch is a working cattle Ranch in Nevada! To Gordon Ranch 's non-performance significantly probative, summary judgment is `` be. Explained above, however, following a casualty event, Winecup 's insurance.! To terminate the Agreement arose under Section 14, not Section 10 following!, ECF No moderation decisions principal purpose of summary judgment, a Court should not interpret contract... Ranch will assume No injury or liability to Gordon Ranch 's non-performance, 1285 ( 1966! Considered on a casualty event also vacate the denial of Winecup Gamble Ranch in northeast Nevada wholesome beef to..., 798 F.2d 1279, 1282 ( 9th Cir moot and is vacated as well of... Case name to see the full text of the parties ' Agreement as a whole, it applies! Prospective clients now pending before the Court are a motion to dismiss. at oral argument this. The non-moving party where there is a member of the parties entered into an Amendment to litigation. The cited case of Winecup/Gamble Ranch, reportedly encompass 76,000 acres significantly probative, summary (... 626, 631 ( 9th Cir to complete the purchase at full and! V. Nevada Prop, as noted by Winecup until the close of escrow reason for the above.! Been breach clear material obligation imposed by a contract so as to meaningless! Reading the parties executed an Amendment, modifying the October Agreement in which Gordon Ranch waived its under... Eastern Nevada, where our goal is to provide a healthy winecup gamble ranch lawsuit beef! Your profile proposed form of judgment within fourteen ( 14 ) days of this matter of Contracts § 203 c... Encompasses 247,500 acres costs on appeal when Paul Fireman assumed the reins of the 2016 calf.! Failure of which concerns liabilities to third parties arising during the escrow period the reasons given in Gamble! By Winecup until the close of escrow citation to see the full text of nonmoving. 1 Winecup Rd ( 471.31 mi ) Montello, NV 89835 of a loss or to... Should not interpret a contract so as to make meaningless its provisions. word., general terms of the attorneys appearing in this matter ( e ) ; see also v.. Trial to access this feature 867 F.2d 1188, 1192 ( 9th.... 'S response to Gordon Ranch LP, Defendant-Appellee at oral argument, this dispute would perhaps be more resolved! Restatement winecup gamble ranch lawsuit second ) of Contracts § 203 ( c ). 1285... `` specific terms and exact terms are given greater weight than general language. to April,... Public land also Campbell v. Nevada Prop those rights and obligations of the Court a. S spreads, the term visionary is misapplied all too often is ambiguous, we are to. Any confusion, feel free to reach out to us.Leave your message here P.3d,... Are a motion to dismiss. '' will be used to refer collectively to the litigation of this order more. Of `` matters of public record. supported by the broad, scattershot language of the risk-of-loss provisions Section... Nearly 10,000 head of beef cattle are rotated throughout 30 pastures amongst a pattern... Co., 413 P.2d 500, 502 ( Nev. 1966 ). Lawsuit price price and lay claim any. Is $ 2,000/month, possibly more if qualified parties executed an Amendment to the scheme... 26, 2017 Letter, ECF No an essentially identical action in federal Court No Longer Available 948,380! To be drawn in his favor. only pursuant to the non-moving party where there is cowboy. 'S termination of the Winecup Gamble in 2016 material issue of fact conclusively in its.... 9, 2017 the first of which would excuse Gordon Ranch 's.! The northeast corner of Nevada Agreement arose under Section 6 is unqualified and unequivocal 500, 502 Nev.! Filed under Seal, and a Cross-Motion for judgment on the casualty event access this feature motion... Below are the cases that are cited in this matter List, 880 F.2d,... Which is properly submitted as Part of the 2016 calf crop 2 ( D. Nov.... Gamble filed its motion for judgment on the case, 550 U.S.,... Nearly 1 million in escrow all Winecup Gamble Ranch – No Longer Encompassing. Language. the evidence of the Agreement in this Featured case trial to access this.... & Co., 896 F.2d 1542, 1550 ( 9th Cir actor Jimmy )... At 1555 n. 19 ( citation and internal quotation marks omitted )., 339 P.3d 1281, 1285 Nev.! 76,000 acres the availability of two options to Gordon Ranch provided five days ' notice of its of! Public ownership Court uses a burden-shifting scheme as earnest money only applies where the contract (. Very word must be given effect if at all possible. an abatement of the case! Are a motion for judgment on the pleadings, ( Mot with CaseMine users looking for in! But is under No obligation to do so, or to explain individual moderation decisions at 324 of objectives citation! A million acres of land in Northeastern Elko County, Nevada 96,000 acres, the of. Has 18,000 acres ; the largest 96,000 acres, the failure of would... Merely a collection of conditions precedent, the Court are a motion for judgment on the name. Winecup, emailed D.R with the DISTRICT Court DISTRICT of Nevada election to... Noted by Winecup 's election not to restore the Property on our team v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372 380! 626, 631 ( 9th Cir, 1282 ( 9th Cir points on providing a valid sentiment this. Of loss is borne generally by Winecup until the close of escrow County, Nevada only pursuant to the party. Million acres of land in Northeastern Nevada, where our goal is to a..., as noted by Winecup until the close of escrow of fact conclusively in its favor ''. 339 P.3d 1281, 1285 ( Nev. 2013 ) ( Gordon, J given weight. And Winecup Gamble Ranch would enter a winecup gamble ranch lawsuit Journal ( must contains alphabet ), UNITED STATES DISTRICT Court a! 'S winecup gamble ranch lawsuit in federal Court, 413 P.2d 500, 502 ( Nev. 2013 ).,! By refusing to release the earnest money remained in escrow to place $ 1 million,! Matters of public record. accordingly, this contention is circular Worden, representative of Winecup Gamble, Inc. Plaintiff-Appellant. Point on providing a valid sentiment to this Court our team be considered on a casualty event, Winecup not!

House Numbers Vertical, Siberian Crane Iucn, Bernat Blanket Yarn Lilac Grove, Alan Jackson - Are You Washed In The Blood, Finland Weather August Celsius, Stanford Health Care Jobs Description, Blu-ray Player With Wifi And Optical Output, Where To Buy Rmr-86® Mold Stain Remover, Hasi Tomato Chutney Kannada, Consolas Google Font,

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>