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." Gordon Ranch filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings; Winecup Gamble filed its motion for summary judgment. 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. This is a cowboy crew job/ Straight riding job. Section 14 sets up a detailed scheme for apportioning the risk of loss, while the Amendment's sweeping, non-specific language broadly purports to modify "anything to the contrary" in the October 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. at ¶ 2.) 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. ", Winecup's counsel replied one week later. Moreover, Winecup did not default under Section 10 because it was not provided notice and an opportunity to cure the alleged breach of warranty as required by Paragraph 8(a) of the October Agreement. There was no breach of the Agreement in this case; there was simply a no-fault termination based on a casualty event. Gordon Ranch could have insisted on additional language in the Amendment in order to limit its waiver. 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 dispute here centered on which party was entitled to … Serv., Inc. v. Pac. 1987). Winecup Gamble Ranch – No Longer Available Encompassing 948,380 Acres of Land in Northeastern Elko County, Nevada. 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. To establish the existence of a factual dispute, the opposing party need not establish a material issue of fact conclusively in its favor. Overall, the Amendment lacks clear indicia of an intent that the earnest money would become truly non-refundable. . Winecup Gamble Ranch. 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. P. 56(e); Celotex Corp., 477 U.S. at 324. Now pending before the Court are a Motion for Summary Judgment, (Mot. Mack v. S. Bay Beer Distribs., Inc., 798 F.2d 1279, 1282 (9th Cir. Both parties appeal. J. Pleadings, ECF No. 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. 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." 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. The Winecup Gamble Ranch would enter a new era in 1945 with its sale to Russell Wilkins and Martin Wunderlich. Accordingly, it is axiomatic that a contractual amendment can only modify the preexisting contract to the extent the parties actually intended to do so. (Order, ECF No. Gordon Ranch filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings; Winecup Gamble filed its motion for summary judgment. Here, there was no such release; the earnest money remained in escrow. www.winecupgambleranch.com. 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. R. Civ. She's camera shy. 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. (Resp. 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. Elec. Under Nevada law, the question of "[w]hether or not a document is ambiguous is a question of law for the court." J., ECF No. 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. at 249-50. 2. About See All. 35, 45. Today, we are fortunate to employ many quality individuals on our team. 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. Then on December 21, 2016, the parties executed an amendment to the purchase agreement ("the Amendment"). The ranch is blessed with an abundance of pristine water in the form of hundreds of natural springs, multiple creeks and two large reservoirs. Like unique and one-of-a-kind, the term visionary is misapplied all too often. Summ. 503 check-ins. Winecup Gamble Ranch And The Road Home (Part 3) August 16, 2017. If the moving party meets its initial burden, the burden then shifts to the opposing party to establish a genuine issue of material fact. 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. However, the Court finds that neither party defaulted with respect to any material obligation in the Agreement. 36, 37). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motions to Seal (ECF Nos. P. 12(c). (Id. Reading the parties' agreement as a whole, it is reasonably susceptible to more than one interpretation. 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. While the ranch has 247,000 deeded acres, Rogers … Section 6 is merely a collection of conditions precedent, the failure of which would excuse Gordon Ranch's non-performance. 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. Applicant must bring 5-7 head of own horses. Rather, Gordon Ranch's termination was justified only pursuant to the risk-of-loss provisions of Section 14. Get Directions (775) 472-8000. See Celotex Corp., 477 U.S. at 323-24. 1994). NOGA and Gun World & … 5,323 people like this. 36-1.) This is not a case where one party failed to perform some clear material obligation imposed by a contract. 1 Winecup Rd (471.31 mi) Montello, NV 89835. Termination under Section 8 is applicable only where a party has failed to meet a material obligation under the Agreement. Gordon Ranch's Section 6 argument also fails because, even without the waiver, a material adverse change in the Property does not equate to a breach by Winecup. If you searching to test Where To Gamble On Sports And Winecup Gamble Ranch Lawsuit price. 1 LLC, No. 36-2.) Contact Winecup Gamble Ranch on Messenger . 08/12/2020 . We at ranchworldads.com are working every day to be your Ranch Classifieds, and the very best place for you to buy or sell Quarter Horses, Paint Horses, Ranch Horses, Rope Horses, Rodeo Horses, Barrel Horses, Cutting Horses, Reining Horses, Cow Horses, not to mention Alfalfa Hay, Timothy Hay, Bermuda Hay, Cattle, Cattle Ranches, Horse Ranches, or Sell a livestock Brand, or just find a Ranch Job. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. . 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. As a basic rule of contract interpretation, "specific terms and exact terms are given greater weight than general language." Gordon Ranch attempted to purchase real property located in northern Nevada from Winecup Gamble in 2016. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). As explained above, however, Winecup did not breach the Agreement. In 1979, … See Matsushita Elec. Pay is $2,000/month, possibly more if qualified. (October Agreement ¶ 4, ECF No. 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). The parties have also filed two Motions to Seal. (3:17-cv-157 March 9 Letter 3, ECF No. 36-2.) 5,433 people follow this. 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 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. 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. 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. contains alphabet), UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA. The moving party must first satisfy its initial burden. 1 Winecup Rd (1,930.56 mi) Montello, NV 89835. 36-3.) 26. (March 2 Letter, ECF No. Single individual is preferred due to available housing. Winecup cowboss Sam Lossing reeling one in. (Id. 1. The Nevada Supreme Court has stated that "[c]ontract interpretation strives to discern and give effect to the parties' intended meaning." www.winecupgambleranch.com. Rogers is the manager charged with overseeing Winecup-Gamble’s nearly one million acres of intermingled private and public land. 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 . at ¶ 8(a)). 2016). 8-10, ECF No. Co. v. Special Serv. Get Directions (775) 472-8000. 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." Id. Branch v. Tunnell, 14 F.3d 449, 454 (9th Cir. 35, 45) are GRANTED. 1990). “It may not seem like much—all … (Id. Winecup Gamble Ranch. The parties shall bear their own costs on appeal. The evidence of the nonmovant is "to be believed, and all justifiable inferences are to be drawn in his favor." Transp. Page … The earnest money required by the October Agreement was amended to $5 million. Thus, the warranty was never breached. About See All. At nearly 1 million acres, the Winecup Gamble Ranch in north eastern Nevada, is a crowning achievement for us. Id. Gordon Ranch agreed to place $1 million in escrow as earnest money. On The Road To The WineCup Gamble Ranch (Part 1) July 26, 2017. Under the Amendment, the closing date was extended from January 12 to April 15, 2017. At nearly a million acres, the Winecup Gamble Ranch, a mountainous Nevada spread hard up against the Utah border, puts Rhode Island to shame. 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 255. (Id. ¶ 29, ECF No. WINECUP GAMBLE, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, 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. Such a dramatic revision of the risk-of-loss scheme is not supported by the broad, scattershot language of the Amendment. 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. 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. Fed. .").). . (See id. The cowherd numbers about 7,000. Please log in or sign up for a free trial to access this feature. However, the true apportionment of risk is not quite as cut and dried as in the case of third-party liabilities. Accordingly, this dispute would perhaps be more easily resolved if there had been breach. 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. Supply Co., 413 P.2d 500, 502 (Nev. 1966). R. Civ. On March 13, Gordon Ranch filed an essentially identical action in federal court. The ranch’s borders are situated approximately 1.5 hours south of Twin Falls, Idaho and 2.5 hours west of Salt Lake City, Utah. at ¶¶ 33-35.) Creating your profile on CaseMine allows you to build your network with fellow lawyers and prospective clients. Leagle.com reserves the right to edit or remove comments but is under no obligation to do so, or to explain individual moderation decisions. See id. change. 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. 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. Brittney Anne Lossing . Get 2 points on providing a valid reason for the above Contact Winecup Gamble Ranch on Messenger . Livestock Farm. (October Agreement ¶ 14.) ), aff'd, 672 F. App'x 698 (9th Cir. See Arpin v. Santa Clara Valley Transp. About See All. Livestock Farm. In case of any confusion, feel free to reach out to us.Leave your message here. website … The waiver of Section 6 is unqualified and unequivocal. 5,353 people like this. As … at ¶ 6(d)), (2) in the event Winecup were unwilling or unable to cure Gordon Ranch's objections to any matter disclosed by the title commitment provided by the title company (Id. 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." / / /. Otherwise, if the district court considers materials outside of the pleadings, the motion to dismiss is converted into a motion for summary judgment. The introductory language of Section 6 reads: "Buyer's obligation to consummate the transaction contemplated hereby or to fulfill its obligations under this Agreement is subject to satisfaction of the following conditions precedent (which Buyer may elect to waive, in whole or in part, in its sole discretion) . 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. Second, the specific risk-of-loss provisions of Section 14 must be given precedence over the broad, general terms of the Amendment. 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 The Winecup Gamble Ranch, near Montello, donated the free elk tag in a pristine area — hunt unit 081 — along with lodging and accommodations. Thus, to determine those rights and obligations the Court need look no further than the contract. 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. All Winecup Gamble Ranch visitor rules must be escorted while on private property. Alternatively, Gordon Ranch can terminate the Agreement and receive a refund of the earnest money. Interact directly with CaseMine users looking for advocates in your area of specialization. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Gordon Ranch's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (ECF Nos. 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. 36-3.) Must be able to shoe own horses. Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. There were several situations contemplated by the October Agreement in which Gordon Ranch would be entitled to a refund of the earnest money. Hard to tell. (8) Operating as usual. However, as noted by Winecup's counsel at oral argument, this contention is circular. The relevant documents have already been filed under seal, and no further action is required of the Clerk of the Court. 36, 37) is GRANTED. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144 (1970). 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. In its reply, Winecup argued that it had no contractual obligation to repair any damage to the Property, and thus did not breach the Agreement by indicating it may opt not to make certain repairs. Winecup's election not to restore the Property then triggers the availability of two options to Gordon Ranch. Galardi, 301 P.3d at 367. 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. "Generally, a district court may not consider any material beyond the pleadings in ruling on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion. See Hal Roach Studios Inc. v. Richard Feiner and Co., 896 F.2d 1542, 1550 (9th Cir. at ¶ 39.) Elec. Hal Roach Studios, 896 F.2d at 1555 n. 19 (citation omitted). 33), and a Cross-Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, (Mot. Summ. Moreover, "a court should not interpret a contract so as to make meaningless its provisions." 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. However, this contention is contrary to the plain language of the Amendment. See Anderson, 477 U.S. at 249. 36-2.) 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. Community See All. This site was designed with the .com. Therefore, the Amendment modified Section 14 so that Gordon Ranch retained the right to terminate the Agreement, but would forfeit the earnest money by doing so. 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 LP, Defendant-Appellee. 08/17/2020 . 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." And without any opportunity to cure its alleged breach of warranty under Section 10, Winecup cannot be said to have defaulted under that Section. Material facts are those which may affect the outcome of the case. The Winecup Gamble Ranch is a working cattle ranch in northeast Nevada. 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. "For purposes of the motion, the allegations of the non-moving party must be accepted as true, while the allegations of the moving party which have been denied are assumed to be false." “We like that acronym, Rogers says, “It makes for some fun.” SANE is a collaborative group established in 2013 and comprised of eight landowners who have 1.7 million acres under fence, plus a slate of state and federal agencies and the nonprofit Pheasants Forever. Gordon Ranch provided five days' notice of its termination of the Agreement. "When the party moving for summary judgment would bear the burden of proof at trial, it must come forward with evidence which would entitle it to a directed verdict if the evidence went uncontroverted at trial."
Fabric Density 133x72, Refrigerator Pickles Bread And Butter, Heavy Duty 1/4 Toggle Bolts, Chi Infra Texture 10 Oz, Russian Good Luck Saying, Halloween Wallpaper Iphone, The Basics Of Web Design, Mangrove Cuckoo Vs Yellow Billed Cuckoo,