Murray v. Brag Sales Inc.
- James Oetken
- 1:23-cv-06610
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Murray v. Brag Sales, Judge Pigueredo terminated Murray’s trial-request motion because discovery continued and explained that guilt findings do not apply in this civil case.
Jonathan Nathaniel Murray’s request for a jury trial and for the defendants to be found “guilty”; the case remained in discovery and was not yet ready for trial.
What happened
In Murray v. Brag Sales Inc., Jonathan Nathaniel Murray asked the court to schedule a jury trial and to find Brag Sales, Inc., and other defendants “guilty.” This was his second request for a jury trial.
The court explained that the case was not ready for trial because discovery was still ongoing. The court had recently directed Murray to respond to discovery requests and set September 30, 2025, as the deadline for completing fact discovery.
Judge Pigueredo also explained that this is a civil, not criminal, case, and that a jury—not the court—would decide whether Murray proved his claims. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate Murray’s motion.
The detailed version
- Murray v. Brag Sales Inc. · No. 1:23-cv-06610
- James Oetken
- July 2, 2025
Background
Jonathan Nathaniel Murray filed a motion asking for a “jury trial” and asking the court to “find Defendant guilty.” The defendants opposed the motion, arguing that Murray had not complied with the case management plan or participated in discovery, so the case was not ready for trial. The opinion states that this was Murray’s second motion asking for a jury trial.
The court had previously explained that discovery was ongoing and that the case was not ready for trial. After a June 9, 2025 conference, the court directed Murray to respond to the defendants’ discovery requests and set September 30, 2025, as the deadline for completing fact discovery.
Court’s Reasoning
The court explained that the case remained in discovery and therefore was not yet ready for trial. It also clarified that this was a civil case, not a criminal case. To the extent Murray asked the court to find the defendants “guilty,” the court stated that a jury—not the court—would determine whether Murray had proved his claims.
Disposition
The court did not set the case for trial at this stage. It directed the Clerk of Court to terminate Murray’s motion at ECF No. 49. The order did not state that the motion was granted or denied. The opinion is a procedural order concerning trial timing, discovery, and the nature of the proceeding; it does not decide the merits of Murray’s claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.