Cooper v. Optum Services CA2/1

California Court of Appeal Dec 22, 2025 No. B345296Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court affirmed the dismissal of the plaintiff's complaint, holding that the trial court's dismissal order was a valid consequence of granting the defendants' anti-SLAPP motion and that the reference to a sua sponte dismissal was a correctable clerical error.

Issues

Whether the trial court lacked statutory authority to dismiss the case on its own motion.
Whether the failure to list 'Doe' defendants in the appellate brief caption constitutes a jurisdictional defect.

Disposition. Affirmed with directions

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The record shows unequivocally that the dismissal order was a direct consequence of the order granting the anti-SLAPP motion.”

“In this context, the court’s statement in the separate dismissal order that the case was dismissed “[o]n the motion of the [c]ourt” is a clerical error and does not reflect a sua sponte dismissal”

Filed 12/22/25 Cooper v. Optum Services CA2/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

TAWANA JEAN COOPER, B345296

Plaintiff and Appellant, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. 24NWCV02923) v.

OPTUM SERVICES, INC., et al.,

Defendants and Respondents.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Raul A. Sahagun, Judge. Affirmed with directions. Tawana Jean Cooper, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant. Jackson Lewis, Ellen E. Cohen, Erica T. Khaine and Dylan B. Carp for Defendants and Respondents. ____________________

Plaintiff and appellant Tawana Jean Cooper challenges the trial court’s order dismissing with prejudice the complaint she filed against her former employer, defendant and respondent OptumRx, Inc. (OptumRx), as well as its corporate affiliates, defendants and respondents Optum Services, Inc. and United Healthcare Services, Inc. We affirm the order for the reasons we explain below. FACTS AND PRIOR PROCEEDINGS Cooper alleges she was employed as a pharmacy customer service representative for OptumRx from December 2019 until she was terminated in April 2021. She filed suit in Orange County Superior Court in January 2022 alleging 10 causes of action, including employment discrimination on the basis of race, age, and disability, as well as wrongful termination.1 The defendants moved to compel arbitration. They claimed that when Cooper was hired, she signed an agreement to arbitrate all employment-related disputes. The Orange County Superior Court denied the motion without prejudice, finding the defendants had failed to produce sufficient evidence that Cooper signed the agreement. The defendants filed a renewed motion accompanied by additional evidence that Cooper had indeed signed an arbitration agreement, and in January 2023, the court granted the motion. Despite the court’s ruling, neither party filed a demand for arbitration for the following 18 months. At an alternative dispute resolution review hearing in August 2024, after Cooper

Cooper v. Optum Services CA2/1

AI Brief

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

TAWANA JEAN COOPER, B345296

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

WEINGART, J.

ROTHSCHILD, P. J.

BENDIX, J.

AI Brief