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)

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