Winecup further asserted that, pursuant to the Amendment, the earnest money was nonrefundable under any circumstances. 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 … However, as noted by Winecup's counsel at oral argument, this contention is circular. 1 LLC, No. / / /. But the Winecup Gamble ranch (once owned by actor Jimmy Stewart) reportedly encompasses 247,500 acres. About See All. The generic term "the Agreement" will be used to refer collectively to the October Agreement and the Amendment. The dispute here centered on which party was entitled to … Co. v. Special Serv. 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. 36.) at ¶ 37. 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. 2016). Branch v. Tunnell, 14 F.3d 449, 454 (9th Cir. 5,510 people follow this. Rogers is the manager charged with overseeing Winecup-Gamble’s nearly one million acres of intermingled private and public land. 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. 2000) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). She's camera shy. See Adickes v. S.H. 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. ), aff'd, 672 F. App'x 698 (9th Cir. 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. (Id. 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." 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. Accordingly, setting aside the issue of waiver, the only reasonable interpretation of the Agreement is that a material adverse change to the Property would excuse Gordon Ranch's refusal to consummate the transaction but would not necessarily constitute a breach by Winecup. 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. At nearly a million acres, the Winecup Gamble Ranch, a mountainous Nevada spread hard up against the Utah border, puts Rhode Island to shame. On May 23, the Court consolidated the two cases under the above-entitled action. (Id. 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. “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. Both parties appeal. WINECUP GAMBLE, INC. V. GORDON RANCH LP, No. 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. at §§ 2, 3.). Community See All. Before confirming, please ensure that you have thoroughly read and verified the judgment. 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. ), 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. 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. 17-16879 (9th Cir. 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." The cowherd numbers about 7,000. 1987). 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. 36-3.) And without any opportunity to cure its alleged breach of warranty under Section 10, Winecup cannot be said to have defaulted under that Section. 1 at 62. / / /. However, this contention is contrary to the plain language of the Amendment. R. Civ. This argument fails for two reasons. 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. In reality, Gordon Ranch's termination of the Agreement arose under Section 14, not Section 10. If that contingency were to arise—i.e., if Winecup chose not to restore the Property—Gordon Ranch had two options: broadly speaking, to go through with the purchase or terminate the Agreement. 26. 36-1.) The remaining layers concern the rights and obligations of the parties in the event of a loss or damage to the Property. But this conclusion is simply wrong. Gordon Ranch attempted to purchase real property located in northern Nevada from Winecup Gamble in 2016. All Winecup Gamble Ranch visitor rules must be escorted while on private property. contains alphabet), UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA. First, Winecup's refusal to repair the flood damage was not a breach under Section 14 of the October Agreement. See id. Here, there was no such release; the earnest money remained in escrow. Again, the risk of loss is borne generally by Winecup until the close of escrow. (Id. In case of any confusion, feel free to reach out to us.Leave your message here. Because the agreement is ambiguous, we also vacate the denial of Winecup Gamble's motion for summary judgment. However, material which is properly submitted as part of the complaint may be considered on a motion to dismiss." 1 Winecup Rd (1,930.56 mi) Montello, NV 89835. Mack v. S. Bay Beer Distribs., Inc., 798 F.2d 1279, 1282 (9th Cir. 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 Winecup Gamble Ranch, near Montello, donated the free elk tag in a pristine area — hunt unit 081 — along with lodging and accommodations. In contract interpretation, "[e]very word must be given effect if at all possible." 2:10-cv-02169, 2013 WL 6118622, at *2 (D. Nev. Nov. 20, 2013) (Gordon, J. 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. See Hal Roach Studios Inc. v. Richard Feiner and Co., 896 F.2d 1542, 1550 (9th Cir. First, Gordon Ranch can go through with the purchase at full price and lay claim to any available insurance proceeds. 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. 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. Please reload. The earnest money required by the October Agreement was amended to $5 million. The amendment uses broad categorical language that purportedly made the earnest money non-refundable in almost all circumstances. change. 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. (Resp. See Celotex Corp., 477 U.S. at 323-24. The Court agrees as well. P. 56(a). The parties shall bear their own costs on appeal. 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. Winecup Gamble Ranch; 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, 2017 Letter, ECF No. By clicking on this tab, you are expressly stating that you were one of the attorneys appearing in this matter. We are so incredibly thankful that Patrick Bates and David Packer of Bates Land Consortium, Inc chose us to produce this mammoth of a marketing video. Cattle ranch located in Northeastern Nevada, where our goal is to provide a healthy and wholesome beef product to the market and consumer. ", Winecup's counsel replied one week later. Page … The Winecup Gamble is a member of the Stewardship Alliance of Northeast Elko (SANE). Location is Gamble division of Winecup/Gamble Ranch, Montello, NV. Judgment was entered accordingly. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. 1989). The ranch is blessed with an abundance of pristine water in the form of hundreds of natural springs, multiple creeks and two large reservoirs. Winecup cowboss Sam Lossing reeling one in. 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. Livestock Farm. & Constructors Inc., 880 F.2d 219, 221 (9th Cir. Overall, the Amendment lacks clear indicia of an intent that the earnest money would become truly non-refundable. (Amendment ¶ 3, ECF No. On February 28, Clay Worden, representative of Winecup, emailed D.R. Livestock Farm. ." About See All. The Winecup Gamble Ranch is a working cattle ranch in northeast Nevada. 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 . 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. Hal Roach Studios, 896 F.2d at 1555 n. 19 (citation omitted). Indus. at ¶ 9.). Thus, the warranty was never breached. Get Directions (775) 472-8000. --------, Lastly, both parties argue that the other breached the Agreement by refusing to release the earnest money. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case. Contact Winecup Gamble Ranch on Messenger . Co. v. Coast Converters, 339 P.3d 1281, 1285 (Nev. 2014). 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. Please log in or sign up for a free trial to access this feature. Again, this was not a breach, precisely for the reasons given in Winecup's response to Gordon Ranch's motion. “It may not seem like much—all … 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. 1 at 60-62.) As explained above, however, Winecup did not breach the Agreement. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144 (1970). On March 16, Gordon Ranch removed Winecup's state-court case to this Court. 5,254 people like this. 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. A court must grant summary judgment when "the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." First, Gordon Ranch waived its rights under Section 6 by executing the Amendment. He thinks of his job as trying to meet a three-legged stool of objectives. 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. 36-2.) Gordon Ranch could have insisted on additional language in the Amendment in order to limit its waiver. Under Nevada law, the question of "[w]hether or not a document is ambiguous is a question of law for the court." (Id. 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. website … Serv., Inc. v. Pac. 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. If Gordon Ranch opted to complete the purchase, it would not receive an abatement of the purchase price. Livestock Farm. 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. 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. Some of my best friends never say a word to me. . Get 1 point on adding a valid citation to this judgment. 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. WINECUP GAMBLE, INC., Plaintiff-Appellee, Gordon Ranch agreed to place $1 million in escrow as earnest money. Winecup's election not to restore the Property then triggers the availability of two options to Gordon Ranch. (Id. 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. Summ. (October Agreement ¶ 14.) Gordon Ranch shall submit a proposed form of judgment within fourteen (14) days of this Order. 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. Elec. But if the evidence of the nonmoving party is merely colorable or is not significantly probative, summary judgment may be granted. reserves the right to edit or remove comments but is under no obligation to do so, or to explain individual moderation decisions. 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. 09/25/2020 . Therefore, if Winecup had, for example, refused to resolve the claims of Union Pacific that arose from the flood, that action may well have constituted a breach or anticipatory breach of the Agreement. A dispute as to a material fact is genuine if there is sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to return a verdict for the nonmoving party. Sprawling across nearly a mi... See More. 8-10, ECF No. 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. 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.
2020 winecup gamble ranch lawsuit