Murray v. UBS Securities, LLC et al
Filing
384
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)
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,
-v.UBS SECURITIES, LLC and UBS AG,
14 Civ. 927 (KPF)
JUDGMENT
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
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
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?