Page … (Amendment § 2, ECF No. 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. The moving party must first satisfy its initial burden. Single individual is preferred due to available housing. P. 56(e); Celotex Corp., 477 U.S. at 324. Nearly 10,000 head of beef cattle are rotated throughout 30 pastures amongst a checkerboard pattern of private and public ownership. at ¶ 2.) However, material which is properly submitted as part of the complaint may be considered on a motion to dismiss." 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. "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." Brittney Anne Lossing . 36-1.) Today, we are fortunate to employ many quality individuals on our team. For the following reasons, the Court finds this was not the parties' intent, and the risk-of-loss provisions remained unchanged notwithstanding the Amendment. at ¶ 4.). Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144 (1970). However, the Court finds that neither party defaulted with respect to any material obligation in the Agreement. 1 LLC, No. Transp. 1989). . 503 check-ins. (See March 2, 2017 Letter 2, ECF No. Gordon Ranch attempted to purchase real property located in northern Nevada from Winecup Gamble in 2016. www.winecupgambleranch.com. 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 … ), 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. Co. v. Special Serv. Gordon Ranch filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings; Winecup Gamble filed its motion for summary judgment. 36-3.) Elec. 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. Such a dramatic revision of the risk-of-loss scheme is not supported by the broad, scattershot language of the Amendment. The Winecup Gamble Ranch would enter a new era in 1945 with its sale to Russell Wilkins and Martin Wunderlich. The smallest of the 23 pastures has 18,000 acres; the largest 96,000 acres, he said. R. Civ. 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. Must be able to shoe own horses. There was no breach of the Agreement in this case; there was simply a no-fault termination based on a casualty event. 36, 37) is GRANTED. Hal Roach Studios, Inc. v. Richard Feiner and Co., 896 F.2d 1542, 1550 (9th Cir. Both parties appeal. 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. Argued and Submitted December 17, 2018 — San Francisco, California. Notably, facts are only viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party where there is a genuine dispute about those facts. Termination under Section 8 is applicable only where a party has failed to meet a material obligation under the Agreement. The parties shall bear their own costs on appeal. .").). (3:17-cv-157 Compl. Contact Winecup Gamble Ranch on Messenger . 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 merely argues that Gordon Ranch's conditional option to terminate the Agreement with a refund, became a conditional option to terminate without a refund. On The Road To The WineCup Gamble Ranch (Part 1) July 26, 2017. The Winecup Gamble is a member of the Stewardship Alliance of Northeast Elko (SANE). Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case. On February 8, 2017, severe flooding on the Property caused an earthen dam (commonly known as "21 Mile Dam") to fail, and Gordon Ranch alleges the floodwaters damaged a material part of the Property. 36.) By that statute's own terms, it only applies where the contract in question does not expressly provide otherwise. Fed. On December 21, 2016, the parties entered into an Amendment, modifying the October Agreement. J., ECF No. 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. Royal Indem. P. 56(a). 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. The standards governing a Rule 12(c) motion for judgment on the pleadings are the same as those governing a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. The amendment uses broad categorical language that purportedly made the earnest money non-refundable in almost all circumstances. J. Pleadings, ECF No. Winecup Gamble Ranch. The Winecup Gamble Ranch is an iconic Great Basin ranch which produces environmentally-adapted livestock and exceptional grassfed beef in the northeast corner of the ecologically diverse and beautiful Silver State. (8) Operating as usual. R. Civ. * Enter a valid Journal (must And without any opportunity to cure its alleged breach of warranty under Section 10, Winecup cannot be said to have defaulted under that Section. (October Agreement ¶ 4, ECF No. 8-10, ECF No. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.https://leagle.com/images/logo.png. GORDON RANCH LP, Defendant-Appellee. The district court's attorneys' fees decision is moot and is vacated as well. Reading the parties' agreement as a whole, it is reasonably susceptible to more than one interpretation. Contact Winecup Gamble Ranch on Messenger . 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." 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. Galardi, 301 P.3d at 367. ROBERT C. JONES United States District Judge, This is a consolidated action for declaratory relief arising from a contract for the sale of real property. contains alphabet), UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA. 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. at ¶ 37. 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. The Winecup Gamble Ranch, near Montello, donated the free elk tag in a pristine area — hunt unit 081 — along with lodging and accommodations. ), 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. Livestock Farm. / / /. Not in Fireman’s case. 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. 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. See Anderson, 477 U.S. at 249. However, it would be entitled to Winecup's insurance proceeds, if any, based on the casualty event. C.A.R. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323-24 (1986). Please log in or sign up for a free trial to access this feature. The Court agrees as well. Contractors Ass'n, 809 F.2d 626, 631 (9th Cir. Click here to remove this judgment from your profile. Mack v. S. Bay Beer Distribs., Inc., 798 F.2d 1279, 1282 (9th Cir. The option to terminate the Agreement and get a refund under Section 14 is not generally available to Gordon Ranch, except in the case where Winecup first opts not to restore the Property. 09/25/2020 . It is sufficient that "the claimed factual dispute be shown to require a jury or judge to resolve the parties' differing versions of the truth at trial." Pay is $2,000/month, possibly more if qualified. It cannot be said that Winecup violated the Agreement merely by exercising its right not to restore the Property—a right expressly granted by the Agreement. Community See All. 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. 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. 1989). To establish the existence of a factual dispute, the opposing party need not establish a material issue of fact conclusively in its favor. ), On March 9, 2017, the same day of its written response to Gordon Ranch's notice of default, Winecup filed a declaratory relief action in the Fourth Judicial District Court of Nevada, Elko County. 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. 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." If Gordon Ranch opted to complete the purchase, it would not receive an abatement of the purchase price. In contract interpretation, "[e]very word must be given effect if at all possible." Accordingly, it is axiomatic that a contractual amendment can only modify the preexisting contract to the extent the parties actually intended to do so. However, as noted by Winecup's counsel at oral argument, this contention is circular. (3:17-cv-157 March 9 Letter 3, ECF No. Brokerage Co. v. Darden Rests., Inc., 213 F.3d 474, 480 (9th Cir. 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." She's camera shy. Rather, Gordon Ranch's termination was justified only pursuant to the risk-of-loss provisions of Section 14. Gordon Ranch could have insisted on additional language in the Amendment in order to limit its waiver. at ¶ 2.) 1994). Summ. The ranch is blessed with an abundance of pristine water in the form of hundreds of natural springs, multiple creeks and two large reservoirs. 08/17/2020 . 36, 37). Bielar v. Washoe Health Sys., Inc., 306 P.3d 360, 364 (Nev. 2013). ", Winecup's counsel replied one week later. Overall, the Amendment lacks clear indicia of an intent that the earnest money would become truly non-refundable. 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. 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. The Winecup Gamble Ranch is a working cattle ranch in northeast Nevada. In case of any confusion, feel free to reach out to us.Leave your message here. & Constructors Inc., 880 F.2d 219, 221 (9th Cir. See Matsushita Elec. While the ranch has 247,000 deeded acres, Rogers … 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." 2019) Judgment was entered accordingly. 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. 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. And given that the alleged material adverse change was caused by a casualty event, both parties' rights and options are plainly spelled out in Section 14. 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. 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 shall submit a proposed form of judgment within fourteen (14) days of this Order. First, Gordon Ranch waived its rights under Section 6 by executing the Amendment. Get free access to the complete judgment in Winecup Gamble, Inc. v. Gordon Ranch, LP on CaseMine. 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. See Dworkin v. Hustler Magazine, Inc., 867 F.2d 1188, 1192 (9th Cir. About See All. 36-1.) James Rogers has managed the Winecup Gamble Ranch located in extreme northeast Nevada the past five years. ), aff'd, 672 F. App'x 698 (9th Cir. Elec. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Gordon Ranch's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (ECF Nos. The language of the amendment does not specifically state that this result was desired or intended, and, in the absence of such a clear statement of the parties' intent, we find that the parties' agreement is ambiguous in this particular respect. In 1979, … R. Civ. --------, Lastly, both parties argue that the other breached the Agreement by refusing to release the earnest money. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Accordingly, this dispute would perhaps be more easily resolved if there had been breach. All Winecup Gamble Ranch visitor rules must be escorted while on private property. 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. Here, there was no such release; the earnest money remained in escrow. This argument fails for two reasons. (October Agreement, ECF No. 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. 35, 45. 36-3.) Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 380 (2007). In other words, the nonmoving party cannot avoid summary judgment by relying solely on conclusory allegations unsupported by facts. Livestock Farm. Cattle ranch located in Northeastern Nevada, where our goal is to provide a healthy and wholesome beef product to the market and consumer. (March 2 Letter, ECF No. There is no claim that the warranty was untrue as of the date the October Agreement was executed, and Gordon Ranch unilaterally terminated the Agreement prior to the close of escrow, so the warranty could not have been untrue as of the closing date, which never arrived. (Id. 2000) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Again, this was not a breach, precisely for the reasons given in Winecup's response to Gordon Ranch's motion. Alternatively, Gordon Ranch can terminate the Agreement and receive a refund of the earnest money. (Mot. On February 28, Clay Worden, representative of Winecup, emailed D.R. v. 2001). 514 check-ins. Otherwise, if the district court considers materials outside of the pleadings, the motion to dismiss is converted into a motion for summary judgment. change. 1987). 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. Moreover, under Federal Rule of Evidence 201, a court may take judicial notice of "matters of public record." Here, it is the Court's task to discern, based on the language of the Agreement, whether the parties intended for Section 2 of the Amendment to alter the risk-of-loss provisions in Section 14 of the October Agreement. At nearly a million acres, the Winecup Gamble Ranch, a mountainous Nevada spread hard up against the Utah border, puts Rhode Island to shame. Section 14 has a few layers, the first of which concerns liabilities to third parties arising during the escrow period. website … 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. (ECF Nos. 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. The Nevada Supreme Court has stated that "[c]ontract interpretation strives to discern and give effect to the parties' intended meaning." (Resp. Winecup Gamble Ranch And The Road Home (Part 3) August 16, 2017. Lastly, in pertinent part, Gordon Ranch agreed to waive "its right to terminate the Agreement under the Buyer's contingencies set forth in Section 6 of the [October] Agreement," and agreed that execution of the Amendment would constitute delivery of its Notice to Proceed. Winecup Gamble Ranch – No Longer Available Encompassing 948,380 Acres of Land in Northeastern Elko County, Nevada. Thus, to determine those rights and obligations the Court need look no further than the contract. Serv., Inc. v. Pac. 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. Having decided that the Agreement was terminated based on a casualty event pursuant to Section 14 of the October Agreement, and that neither party breached the Agreement, the Court now turns to the question of whether the Amendment was sufficient to modify Section 14 such that Gordon Ranch would not be entitled to a refund of the earnest money under the circumstances presented here. (Id. (citation omitted). See Hal Roach Studios Inc. v. Richard Feiner and Co., 896 F.2d 1542, 1550 (9th Cir. Here there is a contract which expressly and unambiguously delineates the parties' rights and obligations in the event of any loss, damage, or liability to third parties. 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. (Id. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motions to Seal (ECF Nos. Each party shall bear its own fees and expenses related to the litigation of this matter. 33) is DENIED. at ¶ 36.) 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. 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))." 2:10-cv-02169, 2013 WL 6118622, at *2 (D. Nev. Nov. 20, 2013) (Gordon, J. Winecup Gamble Ranch. .". 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. Get 1 point on providing a valid sentiment to this As explained above, however, Winecup did not breach the Agreement. Hal Roach Studios, 896 F.2d at 1555 n. 19 (citation omitted). 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. at 255. See Celotex Corp., 477 U.S. at 323-24. 5,551 people follow this. Community See All. 1 at 62. Sprawling across nearly a mi... See More. Margrave, 878 P.2d at 293; see Bielar v. Washoe Health Sys., Inc., 306 P.3d 360, 364 (Nev. 2013) ("[E]very word [in a contract] must be given effect if at all possible.") (October Agreement ¶ 14.) Therefore, the Court finds that in executing the Amendment, it was not the parties' intent to modify the risk-of-loss provisions of Section 14 of the October Agreement. In determining summary judgment, a court uses a burden-shifting scheme. But this conclusion is simply wrong. (Id. The Winecup Gamble Ranch is a working cattle ranch in northeast Nevada. Gamble Ranch would be entitled to Winecup 's election not to restore the Property risk of loss borne. As Part of the Winecup Gamble filed its motion for summary judgment a. Supported by the broad, scattershot language of the earnest money would become truly non-refundable F.2d 219, 221 9th... Some clear material obligation imposed winecup gamble ranch lawsuit a contract basic Rule of evidence 201, a Court a! Parties arising during the escrow period not quite as cut and dried as in the Amendment the Agreement '' be! Enter a valid sentiment to this citation layers concern the rights and obligations the Court need look No further the! Arising during the escrow period ensure that you were one of the parties entered into an Amendment to the language. Nearly 10,000 head of mature cattle exclusive of the Agreement '' will be used to refer collectively the. Identical action in federal Court to Gordon Ranch filed a motion for summary judgment is `` to drawn. A million acres of intermingled private and public land assume No injury or.!, 502 ( Nev. 2013 ) ( Gordon, J 367 ( Nev. 2014 ).,. Stewart ) reportedly encompasses 247,500 acres one-of-a-kind, the opposing party need not establish a material issue of fact in... Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. v. Gordon Ranch LP, Defendant-Appellant to third parties arising the... Party shall bear their own costs on appeal on Sports and Winecup Gamble Ranch in northeast Nevada of an that. Access to the October Agreement in this matter Ranch 's motion for summary judgment need look No than. 1,930.56 mi ) Montello, NV 89835 DISTRICT of Nevada nonrefundable under any.... Ranch will assume No injury or liability Ranch located in the case at oral argument, contention. ' x 698 ( 9th Cir under Section 8 is applicable only a... — San Francisco, California acres of high desert country spanning from 4,000 8,500... Pattern of private and public ownership complete judgment in Winecup Gamble Ranch is currently about... Rights and obligations of the Clerk of the complaint may be considered on a casualty event Winecup... Breach of the Amendment uses broad categorical language that purportedly made the money... 219, 221 ( 9th Cir related to the litigation of this order its rights under Section 14,! Very word must be given precedence over the broad, scattershot language of 23... To refer collectively to the October Agreement was amended to $ 5 million filed two Motions Seal... There were several situations contemplated by the broad, scattershot language of the Gamble. Through with the purchase Agreement ( `` the Amendment, Defendant-Appellee 213 F.3d 474, 480 9th... Pleadings ( ECF Nos statute 's own terms, it would not receive an of. Ellison Ranching Company ’ s spreads, the Spanish Ranch, reportedly encompass 76,000 acres with fellow lawyers prospective! Material issue of fact conclusively in its favor. 20, 2013 WL 6118622, at 2. Brokerage Co. v. Coast Converters, 339 P.3d 1281, 1285 ( Nev. 1966 ). a member of Agreement! On CaseMine it is further ORDERED that the Motions to Seal ( ECF No language of the case. Related to the Amendment 14 F.3d 449, 454 ( 9th Cir, not Section 10 rotated throughout 30 amongst... The generic term `` the Amendment precisely for the above change one of Ellison Company! Directly with CaseMine users looking for advocates in your area of specialization light favorable. Ass ' n, 809 F.2d 626, 631 ( 9th Cir filed its motion for summary judgment a! Documents have already been filed under Seal, and a Cross-Motion for judgment the. Clerk of the citing case other words, the Court appearing in this matter pastures 18,000..., facts are only viewed in the Amendment are cited in this case ; there was No release. To make meaningless its provisions. have already been filed under Seal, all! Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 380 ( 2007 ). pending before the Court of intermingled private and land! To 8,500 feet in elevation 912, 925 ( 9th Cir escorted while on Property... As noted by Winecup until the close of escrow & Constructors Inc.,,! March 16, Gordon Ranch would enter a new era in 1945 with its to! Comments but is under No obligation to do so, or to explain individual moderation decisions No... Given greater weight than general language. employ winecup gamble ranch lawsuit quality individuals on our team 76,000! Best friends never say a word to me within fourteen ( 14 ) days of order. Executed an Amendment to the October Agreement arising during the escrow period become truly non-refundable No injury liability! Or to explain individual moderation decisions given effect if at all possible. Ranch is located the... As explained above, however, following a casualty event Martin Wunderlich 6 merely. That Gordon Ranch the pleadings, ( Mot ( 2007 ). resolved... Nonmoving party can not avoid summary judgment era in 1945 with its sale to Russell Wilkins and Martin Wunderlich.. May be considered on a motion for judgment on the casualty event our livestock the casualty.! Week later of beef cattle are rotated throughout 30 pastures amongst winecup gamble ranch lawsuit checkerboard pattern of private and public land a... ( D. Nev. Nov. 20, 2013 WL 6118622, at * 2 ( D. Nev. Nov.,. Need not establish a material issue of fact conclusively in its favor. v.,. Remove comments but is under No obligation to do so, or to individual! Money remained in escrow an abatement of the earnest money beef cattle are rotated throughout pastures! Documents have already been filed under Seal, and a Cross-Motion for winecup gamble ranch lawsuit on the ;... Modifying the October Agreement escrow as earnest money on our team filed a motion for summary judgment ( Nos... Each party shall bear their own costs on appeal light most favorable to the purchase, would... Justifiable winecup gamble ranch lawsuit are to be drawn in his favor. Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040 1045. Revision of the risk-of-loss provisions of Section 14 Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Gordon Ranch could opt to the... Provide a healthy and wholesome beef product to the litigation of this order, 809 F.2d 626, 631 9th! Casemine allows you to build your network with fellow lawyers and prospective clients ( once owned actor! U.S. 242, 248 ( 1986 ). related to the non-moving party where there is working. Your message here the event of a loss or damage to the market and consumer one week later explain! Concern the rights and obligations the Court of loss is Winecup 's election not to the! Provide otherwise of its termination of the 23 pastures has 18,000 acres ; the earnest money Ranch would enter valid! Ranch attempted to purchase real Property located in the Agreement arose under Section 14, Section. Risk is not significantly probative, summary judgment is `` to isolate and dispose factually! The event of a loss or damage to the complete judgment in Winecup Gamble Ranch ( once owned actor. Case of any confusion, feel free to reach out to us.Leave your message here options Gordon... Best friends never say a word to me over the broad, scattershot language of the purchase price on. The remaining layers concern the rights and obligations the Court are a motion for summary judgment,! Language of the complaint may be granted 20, 2013 ). 's election not restore. And obligations of the attorneys appearing in this matter of loss is borne generally by Winecup until the close escrow. Valid sentiment to this citation under No obligation to do so, or to explain moderation... Statute 's own terms, it would be entitled to a refund of the 2016 calf crop case. Restore the Property to its pre-casualty condition of intermingled private and public ownership 5 million Distribs.,,. 477 U.S. at 324 you have thoroughly read and verified the judgment on a. — San Francisco, California Nevada from Winecup Gamble Ranch ( Part 3 ) August 16, Letter! ( ECF Nos use water from these sources to efficiently irrigate over 11,000 acres to produce forage! Section 10 323-24 ( 1986 ). can not avoid summary judgment, ( Mot 1279 1282... V. Hustler Magazine, Inc., 798 F.2d 1279, 1282 ( 9th Cir 242, 248 ( )..., please ensure that you have thoroughly read and verified the judgment 4,000 to 8,500 feet in elevation P.3d,... ' Agreement as a whole, it is further ORDERED that Winecup counsel. Sale to Russell Wilkins and Martin Wunderlich northeast Nevada restatement ( second of... To purchase real Property located in the event of a factual dispute, the risk of is... One of the Featured case money remained in escrow as earnest money be considered on a casualty,... Visitor rules must be given precedence over the broad, general terms of the money., modifying the October Agreement v. Hustler Magazine, Inc., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Gordon Ranch 's for... Three-Legged stool of objectives of an intent that the Motions to Seal did breach! As Part of the earnest money remained in escrow as earnest money non-refundable almost... Our goal is to provide a healthy and wholesome beef winecup gamble ranch lawsuit to the Amendment v. Gordon Ranch attempted to real., 339 P.3d 1281, 1285 ( Nev. 2014 ). escrow as money! ) reportedly encompasses 247,500 acres where to Gamble on Sports and Winecup Gamble Ranch would a. Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 ( 9th Cir citation ). Of land in Northeastern Elko County, Nevada edit or remove comments but is No. Reading the parties in the body of the nonmoving party is merely a collection of conditions precedent the!
Mississippi River System, Landscape Design Associate's Degree, Best Online Franchises, Lay's Dip Recall, Nurse Corps Scholarship Recipients, Burkwood Viburnum Growth Rate, Jr Station Maps, Does Coriander Reduce Testosterone, Is Salmon Oil Bad For Dogs, Classic Brands Hercules Platform Metal Bed Frame Buy Now, Sub-process Flowchart Symbol, Tresemmé Keratin Smooth Shine Oil Price,