Vukadinovich v. Posner, 2:22-cv-00118

Brian Vukadinovich (Plaintiff) claimed an oral employment agreement with Richard A. Posner (Defendant), alleging he was entitled to $170,000 for services rendered as executive director of the Posner Center and personal advisory services.
Initial discussion of salary ($80,000/year) shifted at a lunch meeting in March 2018 (allegedly amended orally) to $120,000/year, but no writing memorialized the agreement.
From 2018 to 2019, Vukadinovich performed various tasks, formally and informally, for the Posner Center and for Posner himself.
The Plaintiff sued for breach of contract, fraud, and unjust enrichment; the fraud claim was dismissed earlier in the litigation. The case proceeded on breach of contract and unjust enrichment, with Defendant moving for summary judgment.
Key factual disputes centered on enforceability under Indiana’s Statute of Frauds, whether exceptions like part performance or promissory estoppel applied, and the statute of limitations for unjust enrichment claims.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Enforceability of Oral Contract (Statute of Frauds)	The oral agreement, though not written, should be enforceable due to services performed.	The contract could not be performed within one year and was not in writing; unenforceable.	Oral contract unenforceable under Indiana Statute of Frauds.
Part Performance & Promissory Estoppel Exceptions	Exceptions apply; Plaintiff substantially performed and relied on promises to his detriment.	Indiana law does not allow exceptions for contracts not performable within one year.	Exceptions do not apply; no enhanced reliance or unjust injury shown.
Unjust Enrichment/Quantum Meruit	Even if contract unenforceable, Posner should not retain benefit from plaintiff's services.	No measurable benefit conferred; statute of limitations bars the claim.	No evidence of measurable benefit; claim time-barred by 2-year limitations.
Magistrate rulings on discovery and amendments	Magistrate erred by denying discovery extension and leave to amend due to "cherry picking" and technicalities.	Magistrate decisions were within discretion; no excusable neglect or valid amendment case.	No clear error in magistrate rulings; objections overruled.

Haegert v. Univ. of Evansville, 977 N.E.2d 924 (Ind. 2012) (standard for breach of contract claims under Indiana law)
Fresh Cut, Inc. v. Fazli, 650 N.E.2d 1126 (Ind. 1995) (presumption and limits of contract enforceability)
Coca-Cola Co. v. Babyback’s Int’l, Inc., 841 N.E.2d 557 (Ind. 2006) (statute of frauds exceptions and required injuries for estoppel)
Brown v. Branch, 758 N.E.2d 48 (Ind. 2001) (burden for showing unjust and unconscionable injury for estoppel)
Classic Cheesecake Co., Inc. v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., 546 F.3d 839 (7th Cir. 2008) (enhanced reliance required for promissory estoppel exception)
Estate of Hann v. Hann, 614 N.E.2d 973 (Ind. Ct. App. 1993) (claim accrual date for services rendered)
Bayh v. Sonnenburg, 573 N.E.2d 398 (Ind. 1991) (elements and measure of unjust enrichment)