Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-00538/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-00538-19/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Sami Mitri
Plaintiff
Walgreen Company
Defendant

Document Text:

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

On September 16, 2016, the Ninth Circuit issued an opinion in this matter. See Doc. No. 

164. The Ninth Circuit affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded this Court’s decision 

regarding Defendant’s renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law. See id. In relevant part, 

the Ninth Circuit remitted the punitive damages award to $352,000, and remanded the matter for a 

“new trial if [Plaintiff] declines to accept [the Ninth Circuit’s] remittitur.” Id. 

The Clerk of this Court reopened this case on September 19, 2016.

A review of the Ninth Circuit docket indicates that Plaintiff has accepted the Ninth’s 

Circuit’s remittitur on September 30, 2016. See Ninth Circuit Docket in Case No. 14-17580, 

Document No. 53.

On October 12, 2016, the Ninth Circuit issued its mandate. See Doc. No. 165.

On October 17, 2016, the Court ordered the parties to submit a joint status report. See

Doc. No. 166.

On October 24, 2016, Defendant submitted a status report. Defendant stated that the 

parties agreed that a total award of $442,204.40 was owed and should be paid on or before 

SAMI MITRI,

Plaintiff

v.

WALGREEN COMPANY,

Defendant

CASE NO. 1:10-CV-538 AWI SKO 

ORDER CLOSING CASE

Case 1:10-cv-00538-AWI-SKO Document 173 Filed 11/30/16 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

November 15, 2016. See Doc. No. 168. The only issue that remained outstanding was Plaintiff’s 

requests for costs. See id. Once the issue of costs had been settled, the status report indicated that 

the case could be closed. See id.

On October 25, 2016, Plaintiff filed a motion for a briefing schedule with respect to the 

issue of costs. See Doc. No. 169. Plaintiff’s request did not contradict any representation made in 

Defendant’s status report.1 See id. 

On November 4, 2016, the Clerk taxed costs to Plaintiff in the amount of $7,320.12. See

Doc. No. 172. Neither Plaintiff nor Defendant has sought review of this award. See Local Rule 

292(e) (party has seven days in which to seek review of the Clerk’s cost award).

In light of the parties’ agreement on the amount of judgment, and the resolution of 

Plaintiff’s motion for costs, it is appropriate to close this case.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall CLOSE this 

case. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 29, 2016 

 SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

 

1 The Court denied Plaintiff’s motion the following day. See id. at Doc. Nos. 170, 171.

Case 1:10-cv-00538-AWI-SKO Document 173 Filed 11/30/16 Page 2 of 2