Regena Bryant v. OptumRX Pharmacy, Inc. et al

Filing 189

JUDGMENT AFTER JURY TRIAL by Magistrate Judge Douglas F. McCormick. (MD JS-6, Case Terminated). (mba)

Download PDF
1 JS-6 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SOUTHERN DIVISION REGENA BRYANT, Case No. 8:16-cv-00478 DFM Plaintiff, JUDGMENT AFTER JURY TRIAL 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 v. OPTUMRX PHARMACY, INC.; OPTUMRX, INC.; OPTUMRX PBM OF WISCONSIN, LLC; CATAMARAN PBM OF ILLINOIS, INC.; CATAMARAN PBM OF ILLINOIS II, INC.; UNITED HEALTHCARE SERVICES, INC.; UNTIED HEALTH GROUP; UNITED HEALTHCARE CORPORATION; EMPLOYERS PARENT, SUBSIDIARY AND AFFILIATED CORPORATIONS, THEIR PREDECESSORS, AND EACH OF THEIR PRESENT OR FORMER AGENTS, DIRECTORS, OFFICERS, EMPLOYEES, REPRESENTATIVES, SHAREHOLDERS, SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS, WHETHER IN THEIR OFFICIAL OR INDIVIDUAL CAPACITIES; AND DOES 1 - 50, inclusive, Magistrate Judge: Courtroom: Douglas F. McCormick 6B, 6th Floor FPC: Trial Date: June 16, 2017 June 27, 2017 Defendants. 26 27 28 Case No. 8:16-cv-00478 DFM JUDGMENT AFTER JURY TRIAL 1 This action came on regularly for trial on June 27, 2017, in the United States 2 District Court for the Central District of California, Magistrate Judge Douglas F. 3 McCormick presiding. Plaintiff REGENA BRYANT appeared in pro per. 4 Defendants UNITED HEALTHCARE SERVICES, INC., OPTUM SERVICES, INC., 5 UNITEDHEALTH GROUP, INC., and OPTUMRX, INC. (“Defendants”) were 6 represented by Michael S. Kalt and Christina C.K. Semmer of Wilson Turner Kosmo 7 LLP. 8 9 A jury of 8 persons was impaneled and sworn. Witnesses were sworn and testified. After hearing the evidence and the arguments of the attorneys and parties, 10 the jury was instructed by the Court. The jurors retired to consider their verdict. After 11 returning to Court, the jury announced its verdict in favor of Defendants on Plaintiff’s 12 race discrimination claim under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and further 13 announced its verdict in favor of Defendants on Plaintiff’s age discrimination claim 14 under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. 15 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that 16 judgment be entered in the above-captioned action in favor of Defendants as the 17 prevailing party and that Plaintiff shall take nothing by her Second Amended 18 Complaint. 19 In accordance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 54(d) and L.R. 54 of 20 the Central District of California, Defendants are the prevailing parties for the 21 purposes of recovering costs in this action. 22 23 24 DATED: July 18, 2017 THE HON. DOUGLAS F. MCCORMICK UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 25 26 27 28 -1Case No. 8:16-cv-00478 DFM JUDGMENT AFTER JURY TRIAL

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?