Murray v. UBS Securities, LLC et al, No. 1:2014cv00927 - Document 154 (S.D.N.Y. 2017)

Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER: on re: 141 MOTION for Reconsideration re; 139 Memorandum & Opinion, / Notice of Defendants' Motion for Partial Reconsideration of the Court's March 31, 2017 Opinion and Order, filed by UBS Securiti es, LLC, UBS AG. Motions terminated: 141 MOTION for Reconsideration re; 139 Memorandum & Opinion / Notice of Defendants' Motion for Partial Reconsideration of the Court's March 31, 2017 Opinion and Order. filed by UBS Securities, LLC, UBS AG. During a conference held on July 14, 2017, the Court issued to the parties an oral opinion denying Defendants' partial motion for reconsideration. At the parties' request, the Court also ordered on the record that certain names be redacted from the transcript of the July 14, 2017 conference. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the motion at Docket Entry 141. (Signed by Judge Katherine Polk Failla on 7/17/2017) (ap)

Download PDF
Murray v. UBS Securities, LLC et al Doc. 154 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK -------------------------------------------------------X : TREVOR MURRAY, : : : Plaintiff, : : v. : UBS SECURITIES, LLC and UBS AG, : : Defendants. : : X -------------------------------------------------------- USDC SDNY DOCUMENT ELECTRONICALLY FILED DOC #: _________________ DATE FILED: ______________ July 17, 2017 14 Civ. 927 (KPF) OPINION AND ORDER KATHERINE POLK FAILLA, District Judge: During a conference held on July 14, 2017, the Court issued to the parties an oral opinion denying Defendants’ partial motion for reconsideration. At the parties’ request, the Court also ordered on the record that certain names be redacted from the transcript of the July 14, 2017 conference. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the motion at Docket Entry 141. SO ORDERED. Dated: July 17, 2017 New York, New York __________________________________ KATHERINE POLK FAILLA United States District Judge Dockets.Justia.com

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.