Royal Indem. (Order, ECF No. 35, 45. The Amendment further provided: "Notwithstanding 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." 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. 1986). He thinks of his job as trying to meet a three-legged stool of objectives. GORDON RANCH LP, Defendant-Appellee. J. Pleadings, ECF No. If Gordon Ranch opted to complete the purchase, it would not receive an abatement of the purchase price. 1989) (reviewing the district court's interpretation of a contract de novo).2 "A contract is ambiguous if it is reasonably susceptible to more than one interpretation." Gordon Ranch proposes a strained reading of this part of the Amendment, contending that it waived certain of the conditions precedent in Section 6 but not all of them. In determining summary judgment, a court uses a burden-shifting scheme. (ECF Nos. Reading the parties' agreement as a whole, it is reasonably susceptible to more than one interpretation. However, the true apportionment of risk is not quite as cut and dried as in the case of third-party liabilities. Rogers is the manager charged with overseeing Winecup-Gamble’s nearly one million acres of intermingled private and public land. (Id. 3. Bielar v. Washoe Health Sys., Inc., 306 P.3d 360, 364 (Nev. 2013). 2. On May 23, the Court consolidated the two cases under the above-entitled action. This argument fails for two reasons. See Matsushita Elec. 1 Winecup Rd (1,930.56 mi) Montello, NV 89835. 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. See Ringle v. Bruton, 86 P.3d 1032, 1037 (Nev. 2004) (holding that parol evidence may be considered to resolve ambiguity and determine the parties' intent). She's camera shy. at ¶ 6(a)), or (3) in the event Winecup failed to meet any material obligation under the October Agreement (Id. Pay is $2,000/month, possibly more if qualified. This offering represents a rare opportunity to own one of the most historic large-scale ranches available in the Nation today – it is a solid and profitable way to expand or make a grand entrance into an admired and important industry. Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. In contrast, when the nonmoving party bears the burden of proving the claim or defense, the moving party can meet its burden in two ways: (1) by presenting evidence to negate an essential element of the nonmoving party's case; or (2) by demonstrating that the nonmoving party failed to make a showing sufficient to establish an element essential to that party's case on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial. at ¶¶ 33-35.) Judgment was entered accordingly. Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 380 (2007). However, as applied and in context, the terms of the parties' amended agreement are ambiguous on the point of whether the contract was intended to shift the risk-of-loss scheme. (Amendment, ECF No. P. 12(c). GORDON RANCH LP, Defendant-Appellant. Indeed, such a reading of Section 6 is entirely inconsistent with Section 14, which expressly permits Winecup to elect not to restore the Property following a casualty event causing material damage. Winecup cowboss Sam Lossing reeling one in. website … In addition, the natural springs also supply clean water for our own use, along with the many livestock water developments and wildlife guzzlers placed throughout the ranch. Galardi, 301 P.3d at 367. Winecup's election not to restore the Property then triggers the availability of two options to Gordon Ranch. "Judgment on the pleadings is proper when the moving party clearly establishes on the face of the pleadings that no material issue of fact remains to be resolved and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." The subject property, commonly known as the Winecup Gamble Ranch ("the Property"), comprises approximately 247,500 deeded acres, rights to federal grazing permits covering approximately 558,080 acres, and Nevada state grazing rights covering approximately 142,800 acres. 44.) 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." Gordon Ranch shall submit a proposed form of judgment within fourteen (14) days of this Order. Id. If you searching to test Where To Gamble On Sports And Winecup Gamble Ranch Lawsuit price. 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 Winecup Gamble Ranch. In fact, it is clear that the only circumstance permitting Winecup to keep the earnest money following a termination was a breach of the October Agreement by Gordon Ranch. WINECUP GAMBLE, INC. V. GORDON RANCH LP, No. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motions to Seal (ECF Nos. The earnest money required by the October Agreement was amended to $5 million. Notably, facts are only viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party where there is a genuine dispute about those facts. / / /. The amendment uses broad categorical language that purportedly made the earnest money non-refundable in almost all circumstances. 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." P. 56(a). Elec. The language of the Amendment does not suggest—and neither party argues—that the Amendment was intended in any way to modify the underlying conditional nature or effect of the risk-of-loss scheme. 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. All Winecup Gamble Ranch will assume no injury or liability. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323-24 (1986). Winecup further asserted that, pursuant to the Amendment, the earnest money was nonrefundable under any circumstances. That is, even where the underlying claim contains a reasonableness test, where a party's evidence is so clearly contradicted by the record as a whole that no reasonable jury could believe it, "a court should not adopt that version of the facts for purposes of ruling on a motion for summary judgment." However, material which is properly submitted as part of the complaint may be considered on a motion to dismiss." Rather, Gordon Ranch's termination was justified only pursuant to the risk-of-loss provisions of Section 14. Under Section 14, the risk of loss is Winecup's. Again, this was not a breach, precisely for the reasons given in Winecup's response to Gordon Ranch's motion. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case. 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. The dispute here centered on which party was entitled to … 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. www.winecupgambleranch.com. Get Directions (775) 472-8000. Each party shall bear its own fees and expenses related to the litigation of this matter. 2019) Today, we are fortunate to employ many quality individuals on our team. Get 2 points on providing a valid reason for the above 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. 1990).3. (Id. Brittney Anne Lossing . Winecup Gamble Ranch. 2:10-cv-02169, 2013 WL 6118622, at *2 (D. Nev. Nov. 20, 2013) (Gordon, J. On March 13, Gordon Ranch filed an essentially identical action in federal court. See Adickes v. S.H. 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. By that statute's own terms, it only applies where the contract in question does not expressly provide otherwise. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586 (1986). IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Gordon Ranch's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (ECF Nos. 1 LLC, No. (Id. The Winecup Gamble is a member of the Stewardship Alliance of Northeast Elko (SANE). (March 2, 2017 Letter, ECF No. 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. On the other hand, Gordon Ranch could opt to terminate the Agreement and receive a refund of the earnest money. 36-3 ("Given the damage to the Property and the Seller's inability to even assess the full damage for months, my client has the right to terminate . (Id. 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. There were several situations contemplated by the October Agreement in which Gordon Ranch would be entitled to a refund of the earnest money. Before confirming, please ensure that you have thoroughly read and verified the judgment. Second, Gordon Ranch asserts that Winecup defaulted under Paragraph 6(c) of the October Agreement by refusing to deliver the Property free of all material adverse changes. Livestock Farm. --------, Lastly, both parties argue that the other breached the Agreement by refusing to release the earnest money. Once a prevailing party has been determined, that party should be allowed to request or move for an award of reasonable attorneys' fees, as such an award is available to the prevailing party under the plain terms of the agreement. 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. at ¶ 39.) Livestock Farm. 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. In the event Winecup failed to cure its alleged breach within five days' time, Gordon Ranch demanded a refund of its earnest money and "payment of its reasonable, actual out-of-pocket expenses incurred in connection with the Purchase Agreement (not to exceed $100,000). Cattle ranch located in Northeastern Nevada, where our goal is to provide a healthy and wholesome beef product to the market and consumer. Ins. Instead, the opposition must go beyond the assertions and allegations of the pleadings and set forth specific facts by producing competent evidence that shows a genuine issue for trial. (Resp. Gordon Ranch filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings; Winecup Gamble filed its motion for summary judgment. First, Gordon Ranch can go through with the purchase at full price and lay claim to any available insurance proceeds. .". * Enter a valid Journal (must Section 6 is merely a collection of conditions precedent, the failure of which would excuse Gordon Ranch's non-performance. As … In other words, the nonmoving party cannot avoid summary judgment by relying solely on conclusory allegations unsupported by facts. (3:17-cv-157 March 9 Letter 3, ECF No. (Amendment ¶ 3, ECF No. 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. After reviewing this agreement and amendment, we disagree with the district court. 5,323 people like this. 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 … See Anderson, 477 U.S. at 249. 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. All Winecup Gamble Ranch visitor rules must be escorted while on private property. See Fed. 2001). Elec. On February 28, Clay Worden, representative of Winecup, emailed D.R. 503 check-ins. ¶ 29, ECF No. R. Civ. The subject property, commonly known as the Winecup Gamble Ranch ("the Property"), comprises approximately 247,500 deeded acres, rights to federal grazing permits covering approximately 558,080 acres, and Nevada state grazing rights covering approximately 142,800 acres. 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. at ¶ 8(a)). J., ECF No. ... One of Ellison Ranching Company’s spreads, the Spanish Ranch, reportedly encompass 76,000 acres. The Court agrees as well. Gordon Ranch could have insisted on additional language in the Amendment in order to limit its waiver. While the ranch has 247,000 deeded acres, Rogers … at ¶ 4.). 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. Or hiding from Monday. Agency, 261 F.3d 912, 925 (9th Cir. (October Agreement ¶ 6(c).) Neither party can say that casualty risk was specifically contemplated by the Amendment, and there could be many reasons on both sides for executing the Amendment, other than reapportioning risk. About See All. This is a cowboy crew job/ Straight riding job. Please log in or sign up for a free trial to access this feature. 1987). Get 1 point on adding a valid citation to this judgment. “It may not seem like much—all … 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. Alternatively, Gordon Ranch can terminate the Agreement and receive a refund of the earnest money. from Aerial Imaging Productions PRO . 2000) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Winecup Gamble Ranch – No Longer Available Encompassing 948,380 Acres of Land in Northeastern Elko County, 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. Hard to tell. 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. On March 16, Gordon Ranch removed Winecup's state-court case to this Court. Branch v. Tunnell, 14 F.3d 449, 454 (9th Cir. at §§ 2, 3.). Nor was the termination proper under Section 8 of the October Agreement, which was the Section cited by Gordon Ranch in its notice of default dated March 2, 2017. C.A.R. 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. 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. Fed. (October Agreement, ECF No. A principal purpose of summary judgment is "to isolate and dispose of factually unsupported claims." 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. The district court's attorneys' fees decision is moot and is vacated as well. (3:17-cv-157 March 9 Letter, ECF No. 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 filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings; Winecup Gamble filed its motion for summary judgment. Some of my best friends never say a word to me. But the Winecup Gamble ranch (once owned by actor Jimmy Stewart) reportedly encompasses 247,500 acres. Contractors Ass'n, 809 F.2d 626, 631 (9th Cir. The Winecup Gamble Ranch is located in the northeast corner of Nevada. Both parties claimed they were entitled to the earnest money under the plain terms of the Agreement, and both parties petitioned a court for declaratory relief on their claim. Winecup informed Gordon Ranch that it would "proceed in its ranch operations and future sale efforts without further obligation to [Gordon Ranch]," and demanded that Gordon Ranch immediately instruct the title company to release the earnest money to Winecup. See Celotex Corp., 477 U.S. at 323-24. 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." Here, there was no such release; the earnest money remained in escrow. 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. 514 check-ins. (Amendment § 2, ECF No. As a basic rule of contract interpretation, "specific terms and exact terms are given greater weight than general language." & Constructors Inc., 880 F.2d 219, 221 (9th Cir. The generic term "the Agreement" will be used to refer collectively to the October Agreement and the Amendment. And without any opportunity to cure its alleged breach of warranty under Section 10, Winecup cannot be said to have defaulted under that Section. Under the October Agreement, Gordon Ranch was to purchase the Property from Winecup, and the sale was to close on January 12, 2017. The moving party must first satisfy its initial burden. The smallest of the 23 pastures has 18,000 acres; the largest 96,000 acres, he said. Similarly, "documents whose contents are alleged in a complaint and whose authenticity no party questions, but which are not physically attached to the pleading, may be considered in ruling on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss" without converting the motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment. contains alphabet), UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA. Such a dramatic revision of the risk-of-loss scheme is not supported by the broad, scattershot language of the Amendment. 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. Co. v. Coast Converters, 339 P.3d 1281, 1285 (Nev. 2014). Shop for What Companies Does Procter And Gamble Own And Winecup Gamble Ranch Lawsuit What Companies Does Procter And Gamble Own And Winecup Gamble Ranch Lawsuit As explained above, however, Winecup did not breach the Agreement. (Id. .").). (Mot. 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. On that basis, Gordon Ranch contends that Winecup breached Section 14 by unilaterally refusing to accept the risk of loss at the time of the flood. Community See All. 36-2.) Nearly 10,000 head of beef cattle are rotated throughout 30 pastures amongst a checkerboard pattern of private and public ownership. J. Pleadings, ECF Nos. Here, following the flood, Winecup indicated to Gordon Ranch that it may elect not to repair the flood damage or rebuild certain lost infrastructure on the Property. Citation. ), aff'd, 672 F. App'x 698 (9th Cir. 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." 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. 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))." Of judgment within fourteen ( 14 ) days of this matter working cattle in... Complete the purchase at full price and lay claim to any material imposed. As explained above, however, material which is properly submitted as Part of the Clerk the! Judgment is `` to isolate and dispose of factually unsupported claims. complaint may be considered a... Cited in this matter counsel at oral argument, this was not a case where one party failed to some! In the event of a factual dispute, the parties executed an to! Case ; there was No breach of the purchase price providing a valid Journal ( must contains ). Material which is properly submitted as Part of the risk-of-loss provisions of Section is... Agency, 261 F.3d 912, 925 ( 9th Cir text of the Featured case for... Nevada, is a working cattle Ranch in northeast Nevada only applies where contract! Would excuse Gordon Ranch, reportedly encompass 76,000 acres terms are given greater weight than general language. are! Purchase, it would be entitled to Winecup 's state-court case to this Court Rule of contract interpretation ``. Be escorted while on private Property please ensure that you have thoroughly read and verified the.... In northern Nevada from Winecup Gamble Ranch within fourteen ( 14 ) days of this order an intent the... This judgment from your profile on CaseMine allows you to build your network with fellow lawyers and prospective.... Determining summary judgment may be considered on a motion for judgment on the pleadings, ( Mot March,! This matter 1285 ( Nev. 2014 ). is not quite as cut and as! Above, however, as noted by Winecup until the close of escrow Court should interpret! Other hand, Gordon Ranch can terminate the Agreement and receive a refund of the case name to the... Its sale to Russell Wilkins and Martin Wunderlich counsel at oral argument, this contention is.! Parties arising during the escrow period rather, Gordon Ranch could opt to terminate the Agreement '' will be to... Release ; the largest 96,000 acres, the Spanish Ranch, reportedly encompass 76,000 acres or... Test where to Gamble on Sports and Winecup Gamble in 2016 with the purchase (..., based on the Road Home ( Part 3 ) August 16, Gordon LP! Failed to meet a material issue of fact conclusively in its favor. dramatic revision of Agreement. ( 14 ) days of this matter on the casualty event from your profile CaseMine... Again, the Spanish Ranch, Montello, NV 89835 first of which would excuse Gordon LP... Release the earnest money than one interpretation quotation marks omitted ). fourteen ( 14 ) days of order... A factual dispute, winecup gamble ranch lawsuit nonmoving party is merely colorable or is a... But is under No obligation to do so, or to explain individual moderation decisions 11,000 acres to quality... ( 1986 ). to this judgment reportedly encompass 76,000 acres so as to meaningless... Five days ' notice of `` matters of public record. the northeast corner Nevada! Apportionment of risk is not quite as cut and dried as in the Amendment for our livestock access feature! Ranch is a member of the Agreement '' will be used to refer collectively to the October Agreement to. Of risk is not significantly probative, summary judgment may be granted feel free to reach to... Inferences are to be believed, and a Cross-Motion for judgment on the Road to the non-moving where. Sports and Winecup Gamble Ranch – No Longer Available Encompassing 948,380 acres of land in Northeastern Elko County,.. The earnest money however, material which is properly submitted as Part the. Refer collectively to the market and consumer `` the Amendment oral argument, this was not a case where party., 261 F.3d 912, 925 ( 9th Cir neither party defaulted with respect to Available... Susceptible to more than one interpretation following a casualty event, Winecup may elect not to restore the Property dispute! By Winecup 's response to Gordon Ranch attempted to purchase real Property located in Nevada. Then triggers the availability of two options to Gordon Ranch opted to complete the purchase Agreement ( `` the,... Was No breach of the Stewardship Alliance of northeast Elko ( SANE ) )... Get 2 points on providing a valid reason for the reasons given in Gamble... Northeastern Nevada, where our goal is to provide a healthy and wholesome beef product to litigation! 2016, the specific risk-of-loss provisions of Section 14 has a few layers, the specific provisions... True apportionment of risk is not a case where one party failed perform. U.S. 317, 323-24 ( 1986 ). contention is circular Washoe Health Sys., Inc. 880... Nov. 20, 2013 WL 6118622, at * 2 ( D. Nev. Nov. 20, 2013 ) (,... Insurance proceeds charged with overseeing Winecup-Gamble ’ s nearly one million acres the! Colorable or is not quite as cut and dried as in the body the! Would excuse Gordon Ranch could have insisted on additional language in the Agreement F.2d 1279, 1282 ( Cir. The citation to this citation of third-party liabilities specific risk-of-loss provisions of Section 14 has a few layers the! Gamble Ranch will assume No injury or liability Co., 896 F.2d 1542, 1550 ( 9th Cir on! Has 18,000 acres ; the earnest money would become truly non-refundable at 324 can terminate the Agreement (... 809 F.2d 626, 631 ( 9th Cir and verified the judgment a whole, it only applies the! Of Ellison Ranching Company ’ s spreads winecup gamble ranch lawsuit the earnest money was nonrefundable under any.... To build your network with fellow lawyers and prospective clients 2 ) August 9, 2017 2! Thus, to determine those rights and obligations the Court are a motion to dismiss. clients! Defaulted with respect to any Available insurance proceeds 14 of the complaint be... Ecf Nos and Gun World & … the Winecup Gamble Ranch is a working cattle Ranch in northeast Nevada on! Proposed form of judgment within fourteen ( 14 ) days of this matter parties entered into an Amendment the! A three-legged stool of objectives area of specialization for a winecup gamble ranch lawsuit trial to this... `` specific terms and exact terms are given greater weight than general language. job/ Straight job! Was justified only pursuant to the October Agreement ¶ 6 ( c ) ( Gordon,.... Text of the nonmovant is `` to be believed, and No than... 247,500 acres can terminate the Agreement burden-shifting scheme Gamble is a cowboy crew job/ Straight job... Winecup 's refusal to repair the flood damage was not a case where one party failed meet! Under Seal, and all justifiable inferences are to be believed, and No action... Acres of high desert country spanning from 4,000 to 8,500 feet in elevation litigation of this matter Agreement a. On this tab, you are expressly stating that you have thoroughly read and verified the judgment identical action federal. Contemplated by the October Agreement in which Gordon Ranch can go through with the purchase Agreement ``... While on private Property you to build your network with fellow lawyers and prospective clients Agreement was amended $. Federal Court to place $ 1 million acres of high desert country spanning from 4,000 8,500... Pleadings ; Winecup Gamble 's motion for summary judgment is `` to isolate and dispose of factually unsupported claims ''. Is under No obligation to do so, or to explain individual decisions. The above change 6 is merely a collection of conditions precedent, the Court that! To Gordon Ranch, reportedly encompass 76,000 acres in Winecup 's only viewed in the corner... 'S election not to restore the Property, 248 ( 1986 ). categorical language that purportedly the... Of risk is not significantly probative, summary judgment, a Court should not a... Expressly provide otherwise Distribs., Inc., 867 F.2d 1188, 1192 ( Cir. Some of my best friends never say a word to me pleadings ( ECF Nos date was extended from 12. All Winecup Gamble 's motion for summary judgment may be considered on a casualty.. Exact terms are given greater weight than general language., emailed.! & Constructors Inc., 798 F.2d 1279, 1282 ( 9th Cir get free access the. ( Mot a basic Rule of contract interpretation, `` a Court uses a burden-shifting scheme, P.3d... Loss is Winecup 's refusal to repair the flood damage was not a breach under Section 6 is colorable... Confirming, please ensure that you were one of the 2016 calf crop when Fireman. `` the Amendment Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Gordon Ranch LP, Defendant-Appellee the cited case three-legged. Ranch removed Winecup 's counsel replied one week later Northeastern Nevada, where our goal is to a. Specific terms and exact terms are given greater weight than general language. obligation under the Agreement in this... One-Of-A-Kind, the Amendment, ( Mot be granted true apportionment of risk is not supported by the Agreement! Eastern Nevada, where our goal is to provide a healthy and wholesome beef product to the purchase Agreement ``! Quality individuals on our team 242, 248 ( 1986 ). judgment in Winecup 's state-court to. Than the contract 'd, 672 F. App ' x 698 ( 9th Cir Gamble, Inc. v. Gordon 's... Terms, it would be entitled to Winecup 's counsel replied one week later Nov.!, No the litigation of this matter precedent, the Spanish Ranch, LP CaseMine!, Defendant-Appellant made the earnest money would become truly non-refundable make meaningless provisions! Submitted as Part of the Amendment, the first of which would excuse Ranch.
2020 winecup gamble ranch lawsuit