UBS Financial Services Inc v. David Edward Lamarche

Justia Dockets & Filings Ninth Circuit California Central District UBS Financial Services Inc v. David Edward Lamarche

UBS Financial Services Inc v. David Edward Lamarche

Petitioner:	UBS Financial Services Inc
Respondent:	David Edward Lamarche
Case Number:	2:2011cv08620
Filed:	October 18, 2011
Court:	US District Court for the Central District of California
Presiding Judge:	Jay C. Gandhi
Presiding Judge:	Jacqueline H. Nguyen
Nature of Suit:	Other Statutory Actions

Follow case documents by RSS

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed	Document Text
May 22, 2012	Filing 18 AMENDED JUDGMENT by Judge Audrey B. Collins: 1. Judgment is awarded in favor of UBS and against Lamarche in the amount of the Award in the sum of $362,644.24;2. Lamarche shall pay UBS post-award, pre-judgment interest on the above sum at the leg al rate of 9% per annum pursuant to New York Civil Practice Law and Rules Section 5004 (daily interest amount of $89,42) from the date of the FINRA Arbitration Award (October 25, 2010) until the date of judgment for a total pre-judgment int erest amount of $49,449.26; and 3. Lamarche shall pay UBS post-judgment interest on both the sum set forth in item 1 above and pre-judgment interest amount set forth in item 2 above at the legal rate pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1961 from the date of the judgment until paid in full. (rrey)
April 30, 2012	Filing 15 JUDGMENT CONFIRMING ARBITRATION AWARD Judge Jacqueline H. Nguyen, in favor of UBS Financial Services Inc against David Edward Lamarche. (bp)

Date Filed

Document Text

May 22, 2012

Filing 18 AMENDED JUDGMENT by Judge Audrey B. Collins: 1. Judgment is awarded in favor of UBS and against Lamarche in the amount of the Award in the sum of $362,644.24;2. Lamarche shall pay UBS post-award, pre-judgment interest on the above sum at the leg al rate of 9% per annum pursuant to New York Civil Practice Law and Rules Section 5004 (daily interest amount of $89,42) from the date of the FINRA Arbitration Award (October 25, 2010) until the date of judgment for a total pre-judgment int erest amount of $49,449.26; and 3. Lamarche shall pay UBS post-judgment interest on both the sum set forth in item 1 above and pre-judgment interest amount set forth in item 2 above at the legal rate pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1961 from the date of the judgment until paid in full. (rrey)

April 30, 2012

Filing 15 JUDGMENT CONFIRMING ARBITRATION AWARD Judge Jacqueline H. Nguyen, in favor of UBS Financial Services Inc against David Edward Lamarche. (bp)

Access additional case information on PACER

Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.

Access this case on the California Central District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: UBS Financial Services Inc v. David Edward Lamarche
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Petitioner: UBS Financial Services Inc
Represented By:	Devin A Donohue
Represented By:	Jeffrey N Goldberg
Represented By:	Alison R Kalinski
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Finance	[ Google Finance \| Yahoo Finance \| Hoovers \| SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Justia Dockets \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Respondent: David Edward Lamarche
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Finance	[ Google Finance \| Yahoo Finance \| Hoovers \| SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Justia Dockets \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]

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?