Regena Bryant v. OptumRX Pharmacy, Inc. et al, No. 8:2016cv00478 - Document 234 (C.D. Cal. 2017)

Court Description: 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)
Download PDF
Regena Bryant v. OptumRX Pharmacy, Inc. et al Doc. 234 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 Dockets.Justia.com 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