Murray v. UBS Securities, LLC et al, No. 1:2014cv00927 - Document 384 (S.D.N.Y. 2020)
Court Description: JUDGMENT. It is, ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED: That for the reasons stated in the Court's Opinion and Order dated December 16, 2020, the Court's Order dated September 25, 2018, and in accordance with the jury's verdict in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendants, Plaintiff is awarded back pay damages in the amount of $653,300.00; non-economic compensatory damages in the amount of $250,000.00; no front pay damages; prejudgment interest from February 20, 2012, thro ugh the date of entry of judgment using a weighted average prime rate of 3.57%, compounded annually; attorneys' fees to Stulberg & Walsh, LLP, the successor firm to Broach & Stulberg LLP, in the amount of $1,295,116.02, and litigati on costs in the amount of $128,428.81; and attorneys' fees to Herbst Law PLLC in the amount of $344,807.55, and litigation costs in the amount of $1,035.14. Accordingly, the case is closed. (Signed by Judge Katherine Polk Failla on 12/16/20) (yv)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Murray v. UBS Securities, LLC et al Doc. 384 Case 1:14-cv-00927-KPF Document 384 Filed 12/16/20 Page 1 of 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK TREVOR MURRAY, Plaintiff, 14 Civ. 927 (KPF) -v.JUDGMENT UBS SECURITIES, LLC and UBS AG, Defendants. KATHERINE POLK FAILLA, District Judge: Whereas the above-entitled action having been assigned to the Honorable Katherine Polk Failla, United States District Judge, and the matter thereafter having been brought to trial on December 5, 2017, and at the conclusion of the trial, on December 21, 2017, the jury having reached a verdict in favor of Plaintiff as against Defendants, awarding Plaintiff back pay damages in the amount of $653,300.00 and non-economic compensatory damages in the amount of $250,000.00, and indicating that Plaintiff was entitled to no front pay damages; and Whereas, on September 25, 2018, at the conclusion of a court conference, the Court issued an Order dated September 25, 2018, on the posttrial motions filed by Plaintiff and Defendants; denying Defendants’ post-trial motion seeking judgment as a matter of law, Defendants’ renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law or a new trial, Defendants’ motion to limit Plaintiff’s back pay award, and Plaintiff’s motion for reinstatement or front pay, and granting Plaintiff’s motion for the award of prejudgment interest insofar as awarding prejudgment interest from February 20, 2012, through the date of Dockets.Justia.com Case 1:14-cv-00927-KPF Document 384 Filed 12/16/20 Page 2 of 3 entry of judgment using a weighted average prime rate of 3.57%, compounded annually; and Whereas, on December 16, 2020, the Court having rendered its Opinion and Order, awarding attorneys’ fees to Stulberg & Walsh, LLP, the successor firm to Broach & Stulberg LLP, in the amount of $1,295,116.02, and litigation costs in the amount of $128,428.81, and awarding attorneys’ fees to Herbst Law PLLC in the amount of $344,807.55, and litigation costs in the amount of $1,035.14, it is, ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED: That for the reasons stated in the Court’s Opinion and Order dated December 16, 2020, the Court’s Order dated September 25, 2018, and in accordance with the jury’s verdict in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendants, Plaintiff is awarded back pay damages in the amount of $653,300.00; non-economic compensatory damages in the amount of $250,000.00; no front pay damages; prejudgment interest from February 20, 2012, through the date of entry of judgment using a weighted average prime rate of 3.57%, compounded annually; attorneys’ fees to Stulberg & Walsh, LLP, the successor firm to Broach & Stulberg LLP, in the amount of $1,295,116.02, and litigation costs in the amount of $128,428.81; and attorneys’ fees to Herbst Law PLLC in the amount of $344,807.55, and litigation costs in the amount of $1,035.14. Accordingly, the case is closed. 2 Case 1:14-cv-00927-KPF Document 384 Filed 12/16/20 Page 3 of 3 SO ORDERED. Dated: December 16, 2020 New York, New York __________________________________ KATHERINE POLK FAILLA United States District Judge 3
]]>
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.
