Regena Bryant v. OptumRX Pharmacy, Inc. et al

Filing 234

FINAL JUDGMENT AFTER JURY TRIAL by Magistrate Judge Douglas F. McCormick. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that FINAL JUDGMENT is entered in the above-captioned action in favor of Defendants as the prevailing party in the amount of $8,157.04, as determined by the Court in its Order denying Plaintiffs motion to retax costs and denying Plaintiffs motion to stay the costs judgment pending appeal. Related to: 232 (twdb)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

SOUTHERN DIVISION
REGENA BRYANT,

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

Case No. 8:16-cv-00478 DFM

Plaintiff,
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,

FINAL JUDGMENT AFTER
JURY TRIAL
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
FINAL 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

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that FINAL

16

JUDGMENT is entered in the above-captioned action in favor of Defendants as the

17

prevailing party in the amount of $8,157.04, as determined by the Court in its Order

18

denying Plaintiff’s motion to retax costs and denying Plaintiff’s motion to stay the

19

costs judgment pending appeal. (See Dkt. No. 232.)

20
21
22

DATED: September 26, 2017
THE HON. DOUGLAS F. MCCORMICK
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

23
24
25
26
27
28

-1-

Case No. 8:16-cv-00478 DFM

FINAL JUDGMENT AFTER JURY TRIAL