See Anderson, 477 U.S. at 249. As … R. Civ. Co. v. Special Serv. Hal Roach Studios, Inc. v. Richard Feiner and Co., 896 F.2d 1542, 1550 (9th Cir. "Generally, a district court may not consider any material beyond the pleadings in ruling on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion. from Aerial Imaging Productions PRO . 8-10, ECF No. 2001). The remaining layers concern the rights and obligations of the parties in the event of a loss or damage to the Property. On December 21, 2016, the parties entered into an Amendment, modifying the October Agreement. Section 6 does not impose any affirmative obligation on Winecup to prevent material adverse changes from occurring, or to cure material adverse changes prior to closing. Judgment was entered accordingly. 36-2.) Pay is $2,000/month, possibly more if qualified. The cowherd numbers about 7,000. 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. Gordon Ranch filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings; Winecup Gamble filed its motion for summary judgment. 36-3.) Otherwise, if the district court considers materials outside of the pleadings, the motion to dismiss is converted into a motion for summary judgment. reserves the right to edit or remove comments but is under no obligation to do so, or to explain individual moderation decisions. For the following reasons, the Court finds this was not the parties' intent, and the risk-of-loss provisions remained unchanged notwithstanding the Amendment. 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. / / /. Please log in or sign up for a free trial to access this feature. Winecup cowboss Sam Lossing reeling one in. 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. But if the evidence of the nonmoving party is merely colorable or is not significantly probative, summary judgment may be granted. 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. 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." Notably, facts are only viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party where there is a genuine dispute about those facts. GORDON RANCH LP, Defendant-Appellant. Get 1 point on adding a valid citation to this judgment. 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. 44.) 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. 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. (3:17-cv-157 March 9 Letter, ECF No. Because the agreement is ambiguous, we also vacate the denial of Winecup Gamble's motion for summary judgment. 36, 37). GORDON RANCH LP, Defendant-Appellee. Gordon Ranch provided five days' notice of its termination of the Agreement. The ranch encompasses a million acres of high desert country spanning from 4,000 to 8,500 feet in elevation. All Winecup Gamble Ranch will assume no injury or liability. 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. See Celotex Corp., 477 U.S. at 323-24. See Matsushita Elec. 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." 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." Thus, to determine those rights and obligations the Court need look no further than the contract. 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 Margrave v. Dermody Prop., 878 P.2d 291, 293 (Nev. 1994) (per curiam); see LK Comstock & Co. v. United Eng. 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). 08/12/2020 . 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. Second, the specific risk-of-loss provisions of Section 14 must be given precedence over the broad, general terms of the Amendment. ." Click here to remove this judgment from your profile. .").). Winecup's election not to restore the Property then triggers the availability of two options to Gordon Ranch. . Sprawling across nearly a mi... See More. 1987). Creating your profile on CaseMine allows you to build your network with fellow lawyers and prospective clients. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case. at 255. (Id. ), 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. at ¶ 37. 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. Get Directions (775) 472-8000. About See All. 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. 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. The Winecup Gamble Ranch, near Montello, donated the free elk tag in a pristine area — hunt unit 081 — along with lodging and accommodations. 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. 2016). First, Winecup's refusal to repair the flood damage was not a breach under Section 14 of the October Agreement. Accordingly, this dispute would perhaps be more easily resolved if there had been breach. Page … 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. 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. 1989). Get free access to the complete judgment in Winecup Gamble, Inc. v. Gordon Ranch, LP on CaseMine. 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 2016.1 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. 36-1.) IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Gordon Ranch's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (ECF Nos. (October Agreement ¶ 4, ECF No. 5,433 people follow this. 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. at ¶ 6(a)), or (3) in the event Winecup failed to meet any material obligation under the October Agreement (Id. Before confirming, please ensure that you have thoroughly read and verified the judgment. v. 36-2.) She's camera shy. "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."