Vera Bradley Designs Inc v. Dogmatic Inc

Filing 33

OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING 31 MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings filed by Vera Bradley Designs Inc. The Court ORDERS that judgment be entered in favor of pltf, Vera Bradley Designs Inc, and against dft, Dogmatic Inc, in the amount of $636,950.08 plus prejudgment interest at the statutory rate of 8% per annum. Signed by Judge Rudy Lozano on 3/10/10. (jcp)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA FORT WAYNE DIVISION VERA BRADLEY DESIGNS, INC., Plaintiff, v. DOGMATIC, INC., Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

No. 1:09-CV-263

OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on the Plaintiff's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, filed by Plaintiff, Vera Bradley

Designs, Inc., on February 22, 2010 (DE #31). forth below, the motion is GRANTED.

For the reasons set

The Court hereby ORDERS that

judgment be entered in favor of Plaintiff, Vera Bradley Designs, Inc., and against Defendant, Dogmatic, Inc., in the amount of $636,950.08, plus prejudgment interest at the statutory rate of 8% per annum.

BACKGROUND Plaintiff, Vera Bradley, hired Defendant, Dogmatic, Inc., to produce the Vera Bradley Traveling Show Fall 2008. (Compl., ¶ 8.)

Dogmatic provided Vera Bradley with estimated expenses for the production of the 2008 Fall Show. (Compl., ¶ 10.) Dogmatic then

invoiced Vera Bradley, and Vera Bradley paid Dogmatic pursuant to the invoice. (Compl., ¶ 10; Am. Answer, ¶ 10.) The amended answer

states that "Dogmatic admits that the amounts paid by Vera Bradley to Dogmatic were $636,950.08 more than the combined amount of Dogmatic's production fee and expenses incurred by Dogmatic for the 2008 Fall Show." (Am. Answer, ¶ 11.) Following Dogmatic's receipt of the money, "[o]n January 21, 2009, Dogmatic issued Vera Bradley a $636,950.08 credit memo for credits it owed to Vera Bradley, a copy of which is attached hereto, made a part hereof, and marked as Exhibit A." (Compl., ¶ 12; Credit Memo; Am. Answer, ¶ 12.)

Despite Vera Bradley's demands, Dogmatic has admittedly refused to pay Vera Bradley the balance due on the credit memo in the amount of $636,950.08. (Compl., ¶ 13; Am. Answer, ¶ 13.)

Plaintiff, Vera Bradley, filed the instant Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c), on February 22, 2010. Counsel for Vera Bradley discussed the Counsel for Dogmatic reviewed

motion with counsel for Dogmatic.

the instant motion, and represented that he would not be filing a response in opposition to the motion. been filed. To date, no opposition has

Consequently, the motion is ripe for adjudication.

DISCUSSION A motion for judgment on the pleadings under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c) "is reviewed under the same standard as a motion to dismiss under 12(b) . . . ." Flenner v. Sheahan, 107

F.3d 459, 461 (7th Cir. 1997); see also Thomason v. Nachtrieb, 888

2

F.2d 1202, 1204 (7th Cir. 1989).

Where the plaintiff moves for

judgment on the pleadings, "the motion should not be granted unless it appears beyond doubt that the non-moving party cannot prove facts sufficient to support his position." Housing Auth. Risk

Retention Group, Inc. v. Chicago Housing Auth., 378 F.3d 596, 600 (6th Cir. 2004)(quotation omitted). In ruling on a motion for

judgment on the pleadings, the court must accept as true "all wellpleaded allegations" and view them in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, as well as accept as true all reasonable inferences to be drawn from the allegations. Forseth v. Village of Sussex, 199 F.3d 363, 364 (7th Cir. 2000). A court may rule on a

judgment on the pleadings under Rule 12(c) based upon a review of the pleadings alone, which include the complaint, the answer, and any written instruments attached as exhibits. See Northern Indiana Gun & Outdoor Shows, Inc. v. City of South Bend, 163 F.3d 449, 45253 (7th Cir. 1998); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(c)(providing that written instruments attached as exhibits to a pleading are part of the pleading for all purposes). The Seventh Circuit has stated that "interpretation of an unambiguous contract is a question of law for the court." Bechtold v. Physicians Health Plan of Northern Indiana, 19 F.3d 322, 325 (7th Cir. 1994). In considering the plain language of the credit

memo, as this Court must, the language unambiguously states that Dogmatic owed Vera Bradley a credit of $636,950.08 for the 2008 Fall Show. (Credit Memo, Compl. Ex. 1.) Neither party disputes

3

that this balance was due, or that Dogmatic refused to pay Vera Bradley the balance due on the credit memo in the amount of $636,950.08. As such, there has clearly been a breach of contract. Vera Bradley is entitled to judgment in the amount of

$636,950.08, plus prejudgment interest.

"Under Indiana law, the

prejudgment interest rate is set at 8% only when the parties have not agreed on the rate of interest." Leaf Funding, Inc. v. Brogan

Pharms., Inc., 642 F.Supp.2d 844, 856 (N.D. Ind. 2009) (relying on I.C. 24-4.6-1-102). There is nothing in the pleadings establishing that the parties agreed on a rate of interest, and the parties have represented to the Court that they did not agree to any prejudgment interest rate. Therefore, the rate to be applied should be 8%.

CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth above, Plaintiff's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is GRANTED. The Court hereby ORDERS that judgment be entered in favor of Plaintiff, Vera Bradley Designs, Inc., and against Defendant, Dogmatic, Inc., in the amount of $636,950.08, plus prejudgment interest at the statutory rate of 8% per annum. DATED: March 10, 2010 /s/ RUDY LOZANO, Judge United States District Court

4