Pleading, Discovery, and Pretrial Motion Practice (excluding Motions in Limine)
Amend Pleadings, Motion to
Except as indicated, all indented material is copied directly from the court’s opinion.
Decisions of the Tennessee Supreme Court
Elvis Presley Enterprises, Inc. v. City of Memphis, 620 S.W.3d 318, 323 (Tenn. 2021).
This is an appeal from the trial court’s grant of a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. Our review of a dismissal for failure to state a claim under Rule 12.02(6) of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure requires us to take the allegations in the complaint as true. Crews v. Buckman Labs. Int’l, Inc., 78 S.W.3d 852, 857 (Tenn. 2002). A motion filed under Rule 12.02(6) tests “only the legal sufficiency of the complaint, not the strength of the plaintiff’s proof or evidence.” Webb v. Nashville Area Habitat for Human., Inc., 346 S.W.3d 422, 426 (Tenn. 2011). By filing their motions to dismiss, the Appellees effectively “admit[ted] the truth of all of the relevant and material allegations contained in the complaint, but … assert[ed] that the allegations fail to establish a cause of action.” Leach v. Taylor, 124 S.W.3d 87, 90 (Tenn. 2004). As such, “courts should grant a motion to dismiss only when it appears that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of the claim that would entitle the plaintiff to relief.” Crews, 78 S.W.3d at 857. On appeal, we review the “trial court’s decision to dismiss a petition for failure to state a claim … de novo with no presumption of correctness.” Metro. Gov’t of Nashville v. Bd. of Zoning Appeals of Nashville, 477 S.W.3d 750, 754 (Tenn. 2015) (citing Doe v. Sundquist, 2 S.W.3d 919, 922 (Tenn. 1999)).
Bidwell ex rel. Bidwell v. Strait, 618 S.W.3d 309, 318 (Tenn. 2021).
A trial court’s decision to grant or deny a motion to amend is reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard. Runions v. Jackson-Madison Cnty. Gen. Hosp. Dist., 549 S.W.3d 77, 84 (Tenn. 2018) (citing Pratcher v. Methodist Healthcare Memphis Hosps., 407 S.W.3d 727, 741 (Tenn. 2013)). “A court abuses its discretion when it applies an incorrect legal standard or its decision is illogical or unreasonable, is based on a clearly erroneous assessment of the evidence, or utilizes reasoning that results in an injustice to the complaining party.” Id.
Effler v. Purdue Pharma L.P., 614 S.W.3d 681, 687 (Tenn. 2020).
We review the lower court’s decision on the Drug Companies’ Rule 12.02(6) motion to dismiss on the issues of standing and applicability of the [Drug Dealer Liability] Act de novo with no presumption of correctness. Nelson v. Myres, 545 S.W.3d 428, 431 (Tenn. 2018) (quoting Metro. Gov’t of Nashville v. Bd. of Zoning Appeals of Nashville, 477 S.W.3d 750, 754 (Tenn. 2015)). A motion to dismiss challenges the legal sufficiency of a claim and accepts as true all the complaint’s factual allegations. Id. at 430. We are required to take the allegations in the complaint as true and give “the plaintiff the benefit of all reasonable inferences.” Webb v. Nashville Area Habitat for Human., Inc., 346 S.W.3d 422, 426 (Tenn. 2011) (quoting Tigg v. Pirelli Tire Corp., 232 S.W.3d 28, 31–32 (Tenn. 2007)). When defendants move to dismiss under Rule 12.02(6), in effect they are admitting the truth of the allegations in the complaint but contending that those allegations do not state a cause of action. Nelson, 545 S.W.3d at 430–31 (quoting Freeman Indus., LLC v. Eastman Chem. Co., 172 S.W.3d 512, 516 (Tenn. 2005)). “A trial court should grant a motion to dismiss ‘only when it appears that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of the claim that would entitle the plaintiff to relief.’ ” Webb, 346 S.W.3d at 426 (quoting Crews v. Buckman Lab’ys Int’l, Inc., 78 S.W.3d 852, 857 (Tenn. 2002)).
Opinions of the Tennessee Court of Appeals
Doe v. Bellevue Baptist Church, No. W2022-01350-COA-R3-CV, p. 4-5 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 7, 2023).
As noted above, the Parents challenge the propriety of the trial court’s dismissal of their NIED claims upon Bellevue’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, while also raising the question of whether the trial court erred in denying their motion seeking relief from the dismissal order and, alternatively, to amend their complaint. Whereas we review the first of these issues de novo, with no presumption of correctness, we review the latter matters for an abuse of discretion. See Khan v. Regions Bank, 572 S.W.3d 189, 194 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2018) (“A trial court’s decision to grant a Rule 12.02(6) motion to dismiss is a question of law that we review de novo with no presumption of correctness.”); Discover Bank v. Morgan, 363 S.W.3d 479, 487 (Tenn. 2012) (noting that motions to revise under Rule 54.02 and motions for relief under Rule 60.02 are both reviewed for an abuse of discretion); Pratcher v. Methodist Healthcare Memphis Hosps., 407 S.W.3d 727, 741 (Tenn. 2013) (“Trial courts have broad authority to decide motions to amend pleadings and will not be reversed absent an abuse of discretion.”). Regarding Bellevue’s motion to dismiss, we note that “[a] Rule 12.02(6) motion challenges only the legal sufficiency of the complaint, not the strength of the plaintiff’s proof or evidence.” Webb v. Nashville Area Habitat for Humanity, Inc., 346 S.W.3d 422, 426 (Tenn. 2011). The resolution of the motion is determined by an examination of the pleadings alone. Id. When a trial court decides whether to grant leave to amend a complaint, pertinent factors to consider include whether there has been an undue delay in filing and whether there is futility of amendment. Kincaid v. SouthTrust Bank, 221 S.W.3d 32, 42 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2006).
Jones v. Life Care Centers of America, No. M2022-00471-COA-R3-CV, p. 5-6 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 16, 2023).
“[T]he determination of whether to allow an amendment to the pleadings is left to the sound discretion of the trial court.” George v. Bldg. Materials Corp. of Am., 44 S.W.3d 481, 486 (Tenn. 2001). This court reviews discretionary decisions under the “abuse of discretion” standard of review. See Lee Med., Inc. v. Beecher, 312 S.W.3d 515, 524 (Tenn. 2010). The abuse of discretion standard does not permit reviewing courts to substitute their discretion for the trial court. Id. Nevertheless, the abuse of discretion standard of review does not immunize a lower court’s decision from meaningful appellate scrutiny:
Discretionary decisions must take the applicable law and the relevant facts into account. An abuse of discretion occurs when a court strays beyond the applicable legal standards or when it fails to properly consider the factors customarily used to guide the particular discretionary decision. A court abuses its discretion when it causes an injustice to the party challenging the decision by (1) applying an incorrect legal standard, (2) reaching an illogical or unreasonable decision, or (3) basing its decision on a clearly erroneous assessment of the evidence.
Id. (citations omitted). Discretionary decisions require “a conscientious judgment, consistent with the facts, that takes into account the applicable law.” White v. Beeks, 469 S.W.3d 517, 527 (Tenn. 2015) (citing Lee Med., Inc., 312 S.W.3d at 524).
Thus, in reviewing the trial court’s decision to deny Plaintiff’s motion to amend, we will determine, where applicable, whether there is a factual basis for the decision in the record, whether the court properly identified and applied the correct legal principles, and whether the decision is within the range of acceptable alternative dispositions. See Lee Med., Inc., 312 S.W.3d at 524.
Grimaldi v. Christopher, No. E2022-00025-COA-R3-CV, p. 5 (Tenn. Ct. App. April 11, 2023).
As to the order denying Dr. Grimaldi’s motion to alter or amend, the applicable standard of review is abuse of discretion. Discover Bank v. Morgan, 363 S.W.3d 479, 487 (Tenn. 2012).
Fisher v. Smith, No. W2022-00779-COA-R3-CV, p. 5 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 23, 2023).
Additionally, a trial court has broad authority to grant or deny a motion to amend a pleading. Pratcher v. Methodist Healthcare Memphis Hosps., 407 S.W.3d 727, 741 (Tenn. 2013). We review a trial court’s decision to grant or deny a motion to amend under an abuse of discretion standard. Id. (citing Hawkins v. Hart, 86 S.W.3d 522, 532 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2001)). We are not permitted to second-guess the trial court or to substitute our discretion for that of the trial court. Harmon v. Hickman Cmty. Healthcare Servs., Inc., 594 S.W.3d 297, 305 (Tenn. 2020) (quoting Lee Med., Inc. v. Beecher, 312 S.W.3d 515, 524 (Tenn. 2010)). However, the abuse of discretion standard does not immunize a trial court’s decision from any meaningful appellate scrutiny. Id. (quoting Lee Med., Inc., 312 S.W.3d at 524). “A court abuses its discretion when it causes an injustice to the party challenging the decision by (1) applying an incorrect legal standard, (2) reaching an illogical or unreasonable decision, or (3) basing its decision on a clearly erroneous assessment of the evidence.” Moore v. Lee, 644 S.W.3d 59, 63 (Tenn. 2022) (citing Fisher v. Hargett, 604 S.W.3d 381, 395 (Tenn. 2020)).
Waddell v. Waddell, No. W2020-00220-COA-R3-CV, p. 17 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 14, 2023).
We review a trial court’s decision concerning a motion for leave to amend under an abuse of discretion standard. Merriman v. Smith, 599 S.W.2d 548, 559 (Tenn. App. 1979).
Robinson v. City of Clarksville, Tennessee, No. M2019-02053-COA-R3-CV, p. 19 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 31, 2023).
Our Supreme Court has explained that “[a] trial court’s decision to grant or deny a motion to amend [a pleading] is reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard.” Bidwell ex rel. Bidwell v. Strait, 618 S.W.3d 309, 318 (Tenn. 2021) (citing Runions v. Jackson-Madison Cty. Gen. Hosp. Dist., 549 S.W.3d 77, 84 (Tenn. 2018)). “A court abuses its discretion when it applies an incorrect legal standard or its decision is illogical or unreasonable, is based on a clearly erroneous assessment of the evidence, or utilizes reasoning that results in an injustice to the complaining party.” Id. (quoting Runions, 549 S.W.3d at 84).
In re Kailyn B., No. E2021-00809-COA-R3-PT, p. 10 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 17, 2022).
A trial court’s decision on a motion to amend is reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard. Blackwell, 523 S.W.3d at 656 (citing Fann v. City of Fairview, 905 S.W.2d 167, 175 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1994)). Therefore, we “presume that the trial court’s discretionary decision is correct, and we consider the evidence in the light most favorable to the decision.” Wright ex rel. Wright v. Wright, 337 S.W.3d 166, 176 (Tenn. 2011) (citations omitted).
Blackburn v. McLean, No. M2021-00417-COA-R3-CV, p. 16-17 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 10, 2022).
“The rules relating to amendment of pleadings are liberal, vesting broad discretion in the trial court.” Biscan v. Brown, 160 S.W.3d 462, 471 (Tenn. 2005). Indeed, regarding the amendment of pleadings, Rule 15.01 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure specifically states that “leave shall be freely given [to amend pleadings] when justice so requires.” Tenn. R. Civ. P. 15.01. This Court has accordingly explained that the trial court has discretion to “allow the defendant to amend his answer, even to assert an affirmative defense, and ‘even if such a motion is not made until the time of trial.’” Small ex rel. Russell v. Shelby Cty. Schs., No. W2007-00045-COA-R3-CV, 2008 WL 360925, at *15 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 12, 2008) (quoting Reed v. Alamo Rent-A-Car, Inc., 4 S.W.3d 677, 691 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1999)). Considerations relevant to determining whether a court abused its discretion are “whether the amendment would cause undue delay; whether the opposing party has sufficient notice; whether the party seeking the amendment is acting in bad faith; whether the deficiencies have not been cured in previous amendments; whether the amendment would be futile; and whether the amendment would cause undue prejudice.” Id. at *16.
Roach v. Moss Motor Company, Inc., No. M2021-00511-COA-R3-CV, p. 5 (Tenn. Ct. App. May, 6, 2022).
“[I]n the event [a] motion to amend is denied, the trial court must give a reasoned explanation for its action.” Cumulus Broadcasting, 226 S.W.3d at 374 (citation omitted). A trial court’s decision to grant or deny a motion to amend “will be reversed only for an abuse of discretion.” Merriman, 599 S.W.2d at 561. However, “[t]h[e] proviso in [Rule 15.01, that leave to amend shall be freely given when justice so requires,] substantially lessens the exercise of pre-trial discretion on the part of a trial judge.” Id. at 559 (quoting Branch v. Warren, 527 S.W.2d 89, 91 (Tenn. 1975)). The trial court will be found to have committed an abuse of discretion if it “‘applied incorrect legal standards, reached an illogical conclusion, based its decision on a clearly erroneous assessment of the evidence, or employ[ed] reasoning that causes an injustice to the complaining party.’” Wright v. Wright, 337 S.W.3d 166, 176 (Tenn. 2011) (quoting Konvalinka v. ChattanoogaHamilton Cnty. Hosp. Auth., 249 S.W.3d 346, 358 (Tenn. 2008)).
Guo v. Rogers, No. M2020-01209-COA-R3-CV, p. 16-17 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 26, 2022).
In Kwan v. Doe, No. M2000-03208-COA-R3-CV, 2002 WL 225897 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 14, 2002), no appl. perm. appeal filed, this Court explained the standard of review we apply to a trial court’s denial of a motion to amend once partial summary judgment is granted. The Kwan Court explained:
The decision to deny leave to amend presents itself to the sound discretion of the trial judge. Merriman v. Smith, 599 S.W.2d 548, 559 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1979). However, the trial court’s discretion is limited by the rule’s provision that leave to amend “shall be freely given when justice so requires.” Tenn. R. Civ. P. 15.01; HMF Trust v. Bankers Trust Co., 827 S.W.2d 296, 301 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1991). In cases where the motion to amend is not filed until after summary judgment has been granted, the motion is reviewed under a more restrictive standard than the “freely given” language provided in Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure 15.01. See Harris v. City of Auburn, 27 F.3d 1284, 1287 (7th Cir. 1994) (“[T]he presumption that leave to amend shall be freely given pursuant to [F.R.C.P. 15(a)] disappears after judgment has been entered. At this juncture, the party making a [F.R.C.P. 59(e)] motion so that it can amend its complaint had better provide the district court with a good reason to grant its motion.”) (citations omitted).
Kwan, 2002 WL 225897, at *4.
Bodine v Long John Silver’s LLC, No. M2021-00168-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 14, 2022).
Both parties cite to the standard of review for motions to amend the pleadings. With respect to amendments, a trial court has broad discretion. Runions v. Jackson-Madison Cnty. Gen. Hosp. Dist., 549 S.W.3d 77, 84 (Tenn. 2018). As such, a trial court’s decision concerning whether to grant or deny a motion to amend the pleading is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. See Bidwell ex rel. Bidwell v. Strait, 618 S.W.3d 309, 318 (Tenn. 2021). Our Supreme Court has explained that “[a] court abuses its discretion when it applies an incorrect legal standard or its decision is illogical or unreasonable, is based on a clearly erroneous assessment of the evidence, or utilizes reasoning that results in an injustice to the complaining party.” Id. (quoting Runions, 549 S.W.3d at 84) (other internal citations omitted).
