Moncrief v. Tech Pharmacy Services LLC et al

Filing 44

Memorandum Opinion and Order Grants 33 Motion for Judgment and Dismisses with Prejudice the benefit-of-the-bargain calculation issue. (Ordered by Judge Brantley Starr on 1/3/2025) (kaf)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
JAMES MONCRIEF,
Plaintiff,
v.
TECH PHARMACY SERVICES,
LLC, et al.,
Defendants.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

Civil Action No. 3:22-CV-1654-X

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Before the Court is Defendant Tech Pharmacy Services, LLC’s and Defendant
Partners Pharmacy Services, LLC’s (collectively, “Pharmacy Services”) motion for
partial judgment on the pleadings. (Doc. 33). After reviewing the law and the parties’
briefing, the Court GRANTS the motion.
This is a fraud case based on a purported contract. The “contract” in question
purportedly required Plaintiff James Moncrief to assist Defendant Tech Pharmacy
Services, LLC in a separate case in exchange for an unspecified amount. Moncrief
agreed to dismiss his breach of contract claim because of the indefiniteness in terms.
But Moncrief did not dismiss the damages calculation for benefit-of-the-bargain
damages. Pharmacy Services then filed the instant motion under Rule 12(c) for
partial judgment on the pleadings as to the damages calculation.
Rule 12(c) provides that “[a]fter the pleadings are closed—but early enough not
to delay trial—a party may move for judgment on the pleadings.” “The central issue
is whether, in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, the complaint states a valid
1

claim for relief.” 1 The only issue in dispute here is whether the Court can functionally
grant a partial judgment as to the measure of damages, because it is not a separate
cause of action.
Courts have foreclosed certain measures of damages in a Rule 12(c) posture
before. 2 The Court does so here, because Moncrief admits he cannot recover benefitof-the-bargain damages. 3 Moncrief’s other causes of action and measures of damages
remain. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the motion is for partial judgment on the
pleadings and DISMISSES WITH PREJUDICE the benefit-of-the-bargain
calculation issue.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 3rd day of January, 2025.

____________________________________
BRANTLEY STARR
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

1 Hughes v. Tobacco Inst., Inc., 278 F.3d 417, 420 (5th Cir. 2001) (cleaned up).
2 See, e.g., Lee v. Am. Airlines, Inc., No. CIV.A. 301CV1179P, 2002 WL 1461920, at *4–5 (N.D.

Tex. July 2, 2002) (Solis, J.), aff’d, 355 F.3d 386 (5th Cir. 2004); Guidry v. Dow Chem. Co., No. CV 1912233, 2021 WL 4460505, at *5 (E.D. La. Sept. 29, 2021); Bass v. Hirschbach Motor Lines, Inc., No.
3:14CV360TSL-JCG, 2014 WL 5107594, at *5 (S.D. Miss. Oct. 10, 2014).
3 Doc. 34 at 5.

2