Pleading, Discovery, and Pretrial Motion Practice (excluding Motions in Limine)
Dismiss, Motion to (Failure to State a Claim)
Except as indicated, all indented material is copied directly from the court’s opinion.
Opinions of the Tennessee Supreme Court
Ultsch v. HTI Memorial Hospital Corporation, No. M2020-00341-SC-R11-CV, p. 8 (Tenn. July 20, 2023).
We review a trial court’s decision on a motion to dismiss de novo, without any presumption of correctness. Ellithorpe, 479 S.W.3d at 824. We accept the factual allegations in the complaint as true. Effler, 614 S.W.3d at 687. A motion to dismiss should be granted “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.” Willis v. Tenn. Dep’t of Corr., 113 S.W.3d 706, 710 (Tenn. 2003).
Estate of Haire v. Webster, No. E2017-00066-SC-R11-CV, 570 S.W.3d 683, 690 (Tenn. 2019).
A motion to dismiss on this ground “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) (citation omitted). The relevant and material allegations of the complaint are taken as true, and the plaintiff is afforded the benefit of all reasonable inferences that may be drawn from the allegations. Webb, 346 S.W.3d at 426; Brown v. Tenn. Title Loans, Inc., 328 S.W.3d 850, 854 (Tenn. 2010). To survive a motion to dismiss, “ ‘[t]he facts pleaded, and the inferences reasonably drawn from these facts, must raise the pleader’s right to relief beyond the speculative level.’ ” Webb, 346 S.W.3d at 427 (quoting Abshure v. Methodist Healthcare–Memphis Hosps., 325 S.W.3d 98, 104 (Tenn. 2010) ). “[L]egal arguments or ‘legal conclusions’ couched as facts” are not taken as true. Moore-Pennoyer v. State, 515 S.W.3d 271, 276 (Tenn. 2017) (quoting Webb, 346 S.W.3d at 427). We apply de novo review to the lower court’s legal conclusions, including its ruling on the legal sufficiency of the complaint. Webb, 346 S.W.3d at 426. “De novo review also applies to the questions of statutory construction presented in this appeal….” Smith v. Tenn. Nat’l Guard, 551 S.W.3d 702, 708 (Tenn. 2018) (citing Moreno v. City of Clarksville, 479 S.W.3d 795, 802 (Tenn. 2015) ).
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).
Snyder v. Second Avenue Nashville Property, LLC, No. M2023-00498-COA-R3-CV, p. 4 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 31, 2023).
Turning first to our standard or review, a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, brought under Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 12.02(6), “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). A ruling upon a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim presents a question of law, and this court’s review is de novo with no presumption of correctness. Reliant Bank v. Bush, 631 S.W.3d 1, 6-7 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2021). The complaint should only be dismissed “when it appears that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of the claim that would entitle the plaintiff to relief.” Elvis Presley Enterprises, Inc. v. City of Memphis, 620 S.W.3d 318, 323 (Tenn. 2021) (quoting Crews v. Buckman Labs. Int’l, Inc., 78 S.W.3d 852, 857 (Tenn. 2002)). When engaging in this analysis, Tennessee courts are “required to take the relevant and material factual allegations in the complaint as true.” Lind v. Beaman Dodge, Inc., 356 S.W.3d 889, 894 (Tenn. 2011). Furthermore, courts are to liberally construe the complaint in favor of the plaintiff when considering a motion to dismiss for purportedly failing to state a claim. Leach v. Taylor, 124 S.W.3d 87, 92 (Tenn. 2004). Additionally, in such circumstances, the plaintiff receives the benefit of reasonable inferences that can be drawn from the pleaded facts. Webb, 346 S.W.3d at 426. However, “courts are not required to accept as true assertions that are merely legal arguments or ‘legal conclusions’ couched as facts.” Id. at 427. To dismiss based upon failure to state a claim, the motion must be based on the premise that all the material allegations of the complaint, even if true, do not constitute a cause of action. Lanier v. Rains, 229 S.W.3d 656, 660 (Tenn. 2007).
Briars v. Irving, No. W2022-01159-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct App. Sept. 22, 2023).
A statute of limitations defense is appropriately addressed in a motion to dismiss under Rule 12.02(6) of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. See Gunter v. Lab. Corp. of Am., 121 S.W.3d 636, 638 (Tenn. 2003). 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). Thus, “[t]he resolution of a 12.02(6) motion to dismiss is determined by an examination of the pleadings alone.” Id.
We “construe the complaint liberally, presuming all factual allegations to be true and giving the plaintiff the benefit of all reasonable inferences.” Trau-Med of Am., Inc. v. Allstate Ins. Co., 71 S.W.3d 691, 696 (Tenn. 2002). The complaint should not be dismissed “unless it appears that the plaintiff can establish no facts supporting the claim that would warrant relief.” Doe v. Sundquist, 2 S.W.3d 919, 922 (Tenn. 1999). Making such a determination presents a question of law. Our review of a trial court’s determinations on issues of law is de novo, with no presumption of correctness. Id. (citing Stein v. Davidson Hotel Co., 945 S.W.2d 714, 716 (Tenn. 1997)).
JCR, LLC v. Hance, No. E2022-00765-COA-R3-CV, p. 5 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 28, 2023).
“Our standard of review on appeal from a trial court’s grant of a motion to dismiss is de novo, with no presumption of correctness as to the trial court’s legal conclusions, and all allegations of fact in the complaint below are taken as true.” Brown v. Ogle, 46 S.W.3d 721, 726 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000) (citing Stein v. Davidson Hotel Co., 945 S.W.2d 714, 716 (Tenn. 1997)). A trial court’s judgment of dismissal is entitled to be affirmed so long as the trial court reaches the correct result “irrespective of the reasons stated.” Clark v. Metro. Gov’t of Nashville and Davidson Cnty., 827 S.W.2d 312, 317 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1991) (citing Benson v. U.S. Steel Corp., 465 S.W.2d 124 (Tenn. 1971)).
Mitchell v. State, No. M2022-00696-COA-R3-CV, p. 3 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 9, 2023).
The trial court dismissed Ms. Mitchell’s case against the State under Tenn. R. Civ. P. 12.02(6)1 for failure to state a claim on the grounds that the statute of limitations had run. A motion under Rule 12.02(6) “challenges the legal sufficiency of the complaint, not the strength of the plaintiff’s proof.” Trau-Med of Am., Inc. v. Allstate Ins. Co., 71 S.W.3d 691, 696 (Tenn. 2002). In reviewing the trial court’s ruling, we must “construe the complaint liberally, presuming all factual allegations to be true and giving the plaintiff the benefit of all reasonable inferences.” Id. We review the trial court’s legal conclusions de novo with no presumption of correctness. Id. at 696-97.
Morton v. Davidson County Government, No. M2022-01572-COA-R3-CV, p. 4 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 8, 2023).
The standard of review on appeal of the dismissal of a complaint pursuant to Rule 12.02(6) of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure is “de novo, with no presumption of correctness as to the court’s legal conclusions, and all allegations of fact in the complaint below are taken as true.” Brown v. Ogle, 46 S.W.3d 721, 726 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000).
Weatherly v. Eastman Chemical Company, No. E2022-01374-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 7, 2023).
A Tenn. R. Civ. P. 12.02(6) motion admits the truth of all the relevant and material factual allegations in the complaint but asserts that no cause of action arises from these facts. Brown v. Tennessee Title Loans, Inc., 328 S.W.3d 850, 854 (Tenn. 2010); Highwoods Props., Inc. v. City of Memphis, 297 S.W.3d at 700. Accordingly, in reviewing a trial court’s dismissal of a complaint under Tenn. R. Civ. P. 12.02(6), we must construe the complaint liberally in favor of the plaintiff by taking all factual allegations in the complaint as true, Lind v. Beaman Dodge, Inc., 356 S.W.3d at 894; Webb v. Nashville Area Habitat for Humanity, Inc., 346 S.W.3d at 426; Robert Banks, Jr. & June F. Entman, Tennessee Civil Procedure § 5-6(g), at 5-111 (3d ed. 2009). We review the trial court’s legal conclusions regarding the adequacy of the complaint de novo without a presumption of correctness. Lind v. Beaman Dodge, Inc., 356 S.W.3d at 895; Highwoods Props., Inc. v. City of Memphis, 297 S.W.3d at 700.
SNPCO, Inc. v. City of Jefferson City, 363 S.W.3d 467, 472 (Tenn. 2012).
State v. Trinity Industries, Inc., No. M2022-00167-COA-R3-CV, p. 11 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 13, 2023).
Beginning with the relevant standard of review, we note that a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, brought under Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 12.02(6), 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). A ruling upon a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim presents a question of law, and this court’s review is de novo with no presumption of correctness. Reliant Bank v. Bush, 631 S.W.3d 1, 6-7 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2021). The complaint should only be dismissed “when it appears that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of the claim that would entitle the plaintiff to relief.” Elvis Presley Enterprises, Inc. v. City of Memphis, 620 S.W.3d 318, 323 (Tenn. 2021). When engaging in this analysis, Tennessee courts are “required to take the relevant and material factual allegations in the complaint as true.” Lind v. Beaman Dodge, Inc., 356 S.W.3d 889, 894 (Tenn. 2011). Furthermore, courts are to liberally construe the complaint in favor of the plaintiff when considering a motion to dismiss for purportedly failing to state a claim.Leach v. Taylor, 124 S.W.3d 87, 92 (Tenn. 2004). Additionally, in such circumstances, the plaintiff receives the benefit of reasonable inferences that can be drawn from the pleaded facts. Webb, 346 S.W.3d at 426. However, “courts are not required to accept as true assertions that are merely legal arguments or ‘legal conclusions’ couched as facts.” Id. at 427. To dismiss based upon failure to state a claim, the motion must be based on the premise that all the material allegations of the complaint, even if true, do not constitute a cause of action. Lanier v. Rains, 229 S.W.3d 656, 660 (Tenn. 2007).
Smith v. Bluecross Blueshield of Tennessee, No. E2022-01058-COA-R3-CV, p. 7 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 9, 2023).
Regarding our standard of review for motions to dismiss pursuant to Tenn. R. Civ. P. 12.02(6), the Tennessee Supreme Court has instructed:
A motion to dismiss a complaint for failure to state a claim for which relief may be granted tests the legal sufficiency of the plaintiff’s complaint. Lind v. Beaman Dodge, Inc., 356 S.W.3d 889, 894 (Tenn. 2011); cf. Givens v. Mullikin ex rel. Estate of McElwaney, 75 S.W.3d 383, 406 (Tenn. 2002). The motion requires the court to review the complaint alone. Highwoods Props., Inc. v. City of Memphis, 297 S.W.3d 695, 700 (Tenn. 2009). Dismissal under Tenn. R. Civ. P. 12.02(6) is warranted only when the alleged facts will not entitle the plaintiff to relief, Webb v. Nashville Area Habitat for Humanity, Inc., 346 S.W.3d 422, 426 (Tenn. 2011), or when the complaint is totally lacking in clarity and specificity, Dobbs v. Guenther, 846 S.W.2d 270, 273 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1992) (citing Smith v. Lincoln Brass Works, Inc., 712 S.W.2d 470, 471 (Tenn. 1986)).
A Tenn. R. Civ. P. 12.02(6) motion admits the truth of all the relevant and material factual allegations in the complaint but asserts that no cause of action arises from these facts. Brown v. Tennessee Title Loans, Inc., 328 S.W.3d 850, 854 (Tenn. 2010); Highwoods Props., Inc. v. City of Memphis, 297 S.W.3d at 700. Accordingly, in reviewing a trial court’s dismissal of a complaint under Tenn. R. Civ. P. 12.02(6), we must construe the complaint liberally in favor of the plaintiff by taking all factual allegations in the complaint as true, Lind v. Beaman Dodge, Inc., 356 S.W.3d at 894; Webb v. Nashville Area Habitat for Humanity, Inc., 346 S.W.3d at 426; Robert Banks, Jr. & June F. Entman, Tennessee Civil Procedure § 5-6(g), at 5-111 (3d ed. 2009). We review the trial court’s legal conclusions regarding the adequacy of the complaint de novo without a presumption of correctness. Lind v. Beaman Dodge, Inc., 356 S.W.3d at 895; Highwoods Props., Inc. v. City of Memphis, 297 S.W.3d at 700.
SNPCO, Inc. v. City of Jefferson City, 363 S.W.3d 467, 472 (Tenn. 2012).
McCall v. United Parcel Service, No. M2022-01112-COA-R3-CV, p. 4 (Tenn. Ct App. May 15, 2023).
The propriety of a trial court’s dismissal of a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim presents a question of law, which we review de novo with no presumption of correctness. Lind v. Beaman Dodge, Inc., 356 S.W.3d 889, 894-95 (Tenn. 2011).
Waters v. Tennessee Department of Corrections, No. M2022-00316-COA-R3-CV, p. 7 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 11, 2023).
A trial court’s decision to grant a Rule 12.02 motion to dismiss is a question of law that we review de novo with no presumption of correctness. See Webb v. Nashville Area Habitat for Human., Inc., 346 S.W.3d 422, 426 (Tenn. 2011).
Henry v. Casey, No. E2022-00933-COA-R3-CV, p. 8 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 3, 2023).
Regarding the review of a dismissal pursuant to Rule 12.02(6), our Supreme Court has elucidated:
A Rule 12.02(6) motion challenges only the legal sufficiency of the complaint, not the strength of the plaintiff’s proof or evidence. The resolution of a 12.02(6) motion to dismiss is determined by an examination of the pleadings alone. A defendant who files a motion to dismiss “‘admits the truth of all of the relevant and material allegations contained in the complaint, but . . . asserts that the allegations fail to establish a cause of action.’” Brown v. Tenn. Title Loans, Inc., 328 S.W.3d 850, 854 (Tenn. 2010) (quoting Freeman Indus., LLC v. Eastman Chem. Co., 172 S.W.3d 512, 516 (Tenn. 2005)).
In considering a motion to dismiss, courts “‘must construe the complaint liberally, presuming all factual allegations to be true and giving the plaintiff the benefit of all reasonable inferences.’” Tigg v. Pirelli Tire Corp., 232 S.W.3d 28, 31-32 (Tenn. 2007) (quoting Trau-Med [of Am., Inc. v. Allstate Ins. Co.], 71 S.W.3d [691,] 696 [(Tenn. 2002)]). 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.” Crews v. Buckman Labs. Int’l, Inc., 78 S.W.3d 852, 857 (Tenn. 2002). We review the trial court’s legal conclusions regarding the adequacy of the complaint de novo.
Webb v. Nashville Area Habitat for Humanity, Inc., 346 S.W.3d 422, 426 (Tenn. 2011) (other internal citations omitted).
Hayward v. Chattanooga-Hamilton County Hospital Authority, No. E2022-00488-COA-R3-CV, p. 7 (Tenn. Ct. App. April 27, 2023).
A trial court’s grant of a motion to dismiss, filed pursuant to Tenn. R. Civ. P. 12.02(6), is a question of law, which we review de novo with no presumption of correctness. Ellithorpe v. Weismark, 479 S.W.3d 818, 824 (Tenn. 2015).
Doe v. Rosdeutscher, No. M2022-00834-COA-R3-CV, p. 8 (Tenn. Ct. App. April 27, 2023).
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. See Webb v. Nashville Area Habitat for Humanity, Inc., 346 S.W.3d 422, 426 (Tenn. 2011).
Hampton v. Hawker Powersource, Inc., No. E2022-00258-COA-R3-CV, p. 8-9 (Tenn. Ct. App. April 19, 2023).
Regarding the review of a dismissal pursuant to Rule 12.02(6), our Supreme Court has elucidated:
A Rule 12.02(6) motion challenges only the legal sufficiency of the complaint, not the strength of the plaintiff’s proof or evidence. The resolution of a 12.02(6) motion to dismiss is determined by an examination of the pleadings alone. A defendant who files a motion to dismiss “‘admits the truth of all of the relevant and material allegations contained in the complaint, but . . . asserts that the allegations fail to establish a cause of action.’” Brown v. Tenn. Title Loans, Inc., 328 S.W.3d 850, 854 (Tenn. 2010) (quoting Freeman Indus., LLC v. Eastman Chem. Co., 172 S.W.3d 512, 516 (Tenn. 2005)).
In considering a motion to dismiss, courts “‘must construe the complaint liberally, presuming all factual allegations to be true and giving the plaintiff the benefit of all reasonable inferences.’” Tigg v. Pirelli Tire Corp., 232 S.W.3d 28, 31-32 (Tenn. 2007) (quoting Trau-Med [of Am., Inc. v. Allstate Ins. Co.], 71 S.W.3d [691,] 696 [(Tenn. 2002)]). 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.” Crews v. Buckman Labs. Int’l, Inc., 78 S.W.3d 852, 857 (Tenn. 2002). We review the trial court’s legal conclusions regarding the adequacy of the complaint de novo.
Webb v. Nashville Area Habitat for Humanity, Inc., 346 S.W.3d 422, 426 (Tenn. 2011) (other internal citations omitted).
Whitworth v. City of Memphis, No. W2021-01304-COA-R3-CV, p. 3-4 (Tenn. Ct. App. April 3, 2023).
The Tennessee Supreme Court has previously outlined the standard of review where a party defending an action files a motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted:
A [Tennessee Civil Procedure] Rule 12.02(6) motion challenges only the legal sufficiency of the complaint, not the strength of the plaintiff’s proof or evidence. Highwoods Props., Inc. v. City of Memphis, 297 S.W.3d 695, 700 (Tenn. 2009); Willis v. Tenn. Dep’t of Corr., 113 S.W.3d 706, 710 (Tenn. 2003); Bell ex rel. Snyder v. Icard, Merrill, Cullis, Timm, Furen & Ginsburg, P.A., 986 S.W.2d 550, 554 (Tenn. 1999); Sanders v. Vinson, 558 S.W.2d 838, 840 (Tenn. 1977). The resolution of a 12.02(6) motion to dismiss is determined by an examination of the pleadings alone. Leggett v. Duke Energy Corp., 308 S.W.3d 843, 851 (Tenn. 2010); Trau-Med of Am., Inc. v. Allstate Ins. Co., 71 S.W.3d 691, 696 (Tenn. 2002); Cook ex rel. Uithoven v. Spinnaker’s of Rivergate, Inc., 878 S.W.2d 934, 938 (Tenn. 1994); Cornpropst v. Sloan, 528 S.W.2d 188, 190 (Tenn.1975) (overruled on other grounds by McClung v. Delta Square Ltd. P’ship, 937 S.W.2d 891, 899–900 (Tenn. 1996)). A defendant who files a motion to dismiss “‘admits the truth of all of the relevant and material allegations contained in the complaint, but . . . asserts that the allegations fail to establish a cause of action.’” Brown v. Tenn. Title Loans, Inc., 328 S.W.3d 850, 854 (Tenn. 2010) (quoting Freeman Indus., LLC v. Eastman Chem. Co., 172 S.W.3d 512, 516 (Tenn. 2005)); see Edwards v. Allen, 216 S.W.3d 278, 284 (Tenn. 2007); White v. Revco Disc. Drug Ctrs., Inc., 33 S.W.3d 713, 718 (Tenn. 2000); Holloway v. Putnam Cnty., 534 S.W.2d 292, 296 (Tenn. 1976).
In considering a motion to dismiss, courts “‘must construe the complaint liberally, presuming all factual allegations to be true and giving the plaintiff the benefit of all reasonable inferences.’” Tigg v. Pirelli Tire Corp., 232 S.W.3d 28, 31–32 (Tenn. 2007) (quoting Trau-Med, 71 S.W.3d at 696); see Leach v. Taylor, 124 S.W.3d 87, 92–93 (Tenn. 2004); Stein v. Davidson Hotel Co., 945 S.W.2d 714, 716 (Tenn. 1997); Bellar v. Baptist Hosp., Inc., 559 S.W.2d 788, 790 (Tenn. 1978); see also City of Brentwood v. Metro. Bd. of Zoning Appeals, 149 S.W.3d 49, 54 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2004) (holding that courts “must construe the complaint liberally in favor of the plaintiff by . . . giving the plaintiff the benefit of all the inferences that can be reasonably drawn from the pleaded facts”). 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.” Crews v. Buckman Labs. Int’l, Inc., 78 S.W.3d 852, 857 (Tenn. 2002); see Lanier v. Rains, 229 S.W.3d 656, 660 (Tenn. 2007); Doe v. Sundquist, 2 S.W.3d 919, 922 (Tenn. 1999); Pemberton v. Am. Distilled Spirits Co., 664 S.W.2d 690, 691 (Tenn. 1984); Fuerst v. Methodist Hosp. S., 566 S.W.2d 847, 848 (Tenn. 1978); Ladd v. Roane Hosiery, Inc., 556 S.W.2d 758, 759–60 (Tenn. 1977). We review the trial court’s legal conclusions regarding the adequacy of the complaint de novo. Brown, 328 S.W.3d at 855; Stein, 945 S.W.2d at 716.
Webb v. Nashville Area Habitat for Human., Inc., 346 S.W.3d 422, 426 (Tenn. 2011).2
Mears v. Nashville Center for Rehabilitation and Healing, LLC, No. M2022-00490-COA-R3-CV, p. 3 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 29, 2023).
A motion to dismiss under Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 12.02(6) is the proper method to challenge the plaintiff’s failure to file a certificate of good faith. Ellithorpe v. Weismark, 479 S.W.3d 818, 823 (Tenn. 2015). In evaluating a Rule 12.02(6) motion for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, this court construes the complaint liberally, presumes that the factual allegations of the complaint are true, and draws reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff. Cooper v. Mandy, 639 S.W.3d 29, 33 (Tenn. 2022). “A motion to dismiss should be granted only if it appears that ‘the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of the claim that would entitle the plaintiff to relief.’” Ellithorpe, 479 S.W.3d at 824 (quoting Webb v. Nashville Area Habitat for Humanity, Inc., 346 S.W.3d 422, 426 (Tenn. 2011)). This court reviews the trial court’s decision on a motion to dismiss de novo. Id. Likewise, the application of the common knowledge exception is a question of law reviewed de novo with no presumption of correctness. Jackson v. Burrell, 602 S.W.3d 340, 344 (Tenn. 2020).
Goetz v. Autin, No. W2022-00393-COA-R3-CV, p. 17 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 17, 2023).
A trial court’s dismissal of a lawsuit for failure to state a claim under Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 12.02(6) presents a question of law. Elvis Presley Enter., Inc. v. City of Memphis, 620 S.W.3d 318, 323 (Tenn. 2021) (citation omitted).
Seely v. Geico Advantage Insurance Co., No. M2021-01263-COA-R3-CV, p. 6 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 6, 2023).
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. See Webb v. Nashville Area Habitat for Humanity, Inc., 346 S.W.3d 422, 426 (Tenn. 2011).
Anderson v. Lauderdale County, Tennessee, No. W2022-00332-COA-R3-CV, p. 3 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 21, 2023).
A statute of limitations defense is appropriately addressed in a motion to dismiss under Rule 12.02(6) of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure. See Martin v. Rolling Hills Hosp., LLC, 600 S.W.3d 322, 330 (Tenn. 2020). A motion filed under Tenn. R. Civ. P. 12.02(6) “tests only the legal sufficiency of the plaintiff’s complaint, not the strength of the plaintiff’s proof.” Redwing v. Catholic Bishop for Diocese of Memphis, 363 S.W.3d 436, 455 (Tenn. 2012) (citing Highwoods Props., Inc. v. City of Memphis, 297 S.W.3d 695, 700 (Tenn. 2009)). When ruling on a motion to dismiss, “courts ‘must construe the complaint liberally,’ presume all alleged facts are true, and ‘giv[e] the plaintiff the benefit of all reasonable inferences.’” Cooper v. Mandy, 639 S.W.3d 29, 33 (Tenn. 2022) (quoting Ellithorpe v. Weismark, 479 S.W.3d 818, 824 (Tenn. 2015)). A trial court’s determination of “the applicable statute limitations is an issue of law that we review de novo.” Bates v. Greene, 544 S.W.3d 345, 347 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2017) (citing Gunter v. Lab Corp. of Am., 121, S.W.3d 636, 638 (Tenn. 2003)); see also Benz-Elliott v. Barrett Enters, LP, 456 S.W.3d 140, 147 (Tenn. 2015).
Miller v. Miller, No. W2022-00117-COA-R3-CV, p. 5 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 15, 2023).
Appellant appeals from the trial court’s granting of Appellee’s motion to dismiss. In ruling on a motion to dismiss, “courts ‘must construe the complaint liberally,’ presume all alleged facts are true, and ‘giv[e] the plaintiff the benefit of all reasonable inferences.’” Cooper v. Mandy, 639 S.W.3d 29, 33 (Tenn. 2022) (quoting Ellithorpe v. Weismark, 479 S.W.3d 818, 824 (Tenn. 2015)). The motion challenges only the legal sufficiency of the complaint and is resolved by examining the pleadings alone. Ellithorpe, 479 S.W.3d at 824 (quoting Phillips v. Montgomery Cnty., 442 S.W.3d 233, 237 (Tenn. 2014)). Only if no set of facts can be proven to entitle the plaintiff to relief should the motion be granted. Id. (quoting Webb v. Nashville Area Habitat for Humanity, Inc., 346 S.W.3d 422, 426 (Tenn. 2011)). We review a trial court’s decision on such a motion de novo without any presumption of correctness. Id. (citing Phillips, 442 S.W.3d at 237).
Robinson v. City of Clarksville, Tennessee, No. M2019-02053-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 31, 2023).
A Tenn. R. Civ. P. 12.02(6) motion to dismiss “seeks only to determine whether the pleadings state a claim upon which relief can be granted.” Edwards v. Allen, 216 S.W.3d 278, 284 (Tenn. 2007). The motion “tests the legal sufficiency of the complaint” rather than “the strength of plaintiff’s proof.” Smith v. Benihana Nat’l Corp., 592 S.W.3d 864, 870 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2019) (citations omitted). A trial court’s decision to grant a Tenn. R. Civ. P. 12.02(6) motion to dismiss is a question of law that we review de novo with no presumption of correctness. See Webb v. Nashville Area Habitat for Humanity, Inc., 346 S.W.3d 422, 426 (Tenn. 2011). We uphold a trial court’s decision to dismiss under Tenn. R. Civ. P. 12.02(6) “only when it appears that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of a claim that will entitle him or her to relief.” Young v. Barrow, 130 S.W.3d 59, 63 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2003).
Burgess v. Bradford Hills HOA, No. M2020-01565-COA-R3-CV, p. 6 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 10, 2023).
A trial court’s decision regarding the adequacy of a complaint involves a question of law which we review de novo with no presumption of correctness. Myers v. AMISUB(SFH), Inc., 382 S.W.3d 300, 307 (Tenn. 2012); Stewart v. Schofield, 368 S.W.3d 457, 462-63 (Tenn. 2012).
Bryan College v. National Association of Christian Athletes, No. E2021-00931-COA-R3-CV, p. 6 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 9, 2023).
Regarding the trial court’s grant of the Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 12.02(6) motion to dismiss NACA’s counter-complaint, our Supreme Court has instructed as follows:
A motion to dismiss a complaint for failure to state a claim for which relief may be granted tests the legal sufficiency of the plaintiff’s complaint. The motion requires the court to review the complaint alone. Dismissal under Tenn. R. Civ. P. 12.02(6) is warranted only when the alleged facts will not entitle the plaintiff to relief [] or when the complaint is totally lacking in clarity and specificity . . .
A Tenn. R. Civ. P. 12.02(6) motion admits the truth of all the relevant and material factual allegations in the complaint but asserts that no cause of action arises from these facts. Accordingly, in reviewing a trial court’s dismissal of a complaint under Tenn. R. Civ. P. 12.02(6), we must construe the complaint liberally in favor of the plaintiff by taking all factual allegations in the complaint as true []. We review the trial court’s legal conclusions regarding the adequacy of the complaint de novo without a presumption of correctness.
SNPCO, Inc. v. City of Jefferson City, 363 S.W.3d 467, 472 (Tenn. 2012) (internal citations omitted).
Eudaley v. U.S. Bank National Association, No. M2021-00344-COA-R3-CV, p. 2 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 19, 2022).
A motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim “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 “court must construe the complaint liberally, presuming all factual allegations to be true and giving the plaintiff the benefit of all reasonable inferences.” Trau-Med of Am., Inc. v. Allstate Ins. Co., 71 S.W.3d 691, 696 (Tenn. 2002). The complaint should not be dismissed unless it appears that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his or her claim that would warrant relief. Doe v. Sundquist, 2 S.W.3d 919, 922 (Tenn. 1999). Making such a determination presents a question of law. Id. So our review is “de novo without a presumption of correctness.” Id.
STJ, L.P. v. Frensley, No. M2021-00920-COA-R3-CV, p. 4-5 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 16, 2022).
In outlining the well-settled law governing dismissals at the motion to dismiss stage, the Tennessee Supreme Court has previously stated as follows:
Under Tenn. R. Civ. P. 12.02(6), the purpose of a motion to dismiss is to determine whether the pleadings state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Trau–Med of Am., Inc. v. Allstate Ins., 71 S.W.3d 691, 696 (Tenn. 2002). “Our motion-to-dismiss jurisprudence reflects the principle that this stage of the proceedings is particularly ill-suited for an evaluation of the likelihood of success on the merits or of the weight of the facts pleaded, or as a docket-clearing mechanism.” Webb v. Nashville Area Habitat for Humanity, 346 S.W.3d 422, 437 (Tenn. 2011). In reviewing these motions, we are required to construe the complaint liberally, presume that all factual allegations are true and give the plaintiff the benefit of all reasonable inferences. Id. 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 should a trial court grant a motion to dismiss. Web, 346 S.W.3d at 426. The lower courts’ legal conclusions are reviewed de novo without any presumption of correctness. Id.
Cullum v. McCool, 432 S.W.3d 829, 832 (Tenn. 2013).
Augustin v. Bradley County Sheriff’s Office, No. E2021-00345-COA-R3-CV, p. 4 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 21, 2022).
Our review of the trial court’s decision to grant Appellee’s motion to dismiss is de novo with no presumption of correctness. Id.
Jackson v. Vanderbilt University Medical Center, No. M2022-00476-COA-R3-CV, p. 4 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 31, 2022).
We review a trial court’s decision on such a motion de novo without any presumption of correctness. Id. (citing Phillips, 442 S.W.3d at 237).
Hawthorne v. Morgan & Morgan of Nashville, PLLC, No. W2021-01011-COA-R3-CV, p. 3 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 19, 2022).
“We to dismiss de novo with no presumption of correctness.” Woodruff by & through Cockrell v. Walker, 542 S.W.3d 486, 493 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2017).
Avery v. Blackburn, No. M2021-01482-COA-R3-CV, p. 4-5 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 31, 2022).
A trial judge has the authority to dismiss a claim sua sponte “when he is of the opinion that the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.” Huckeby v. Spangler, 521 S.W.2d 568, 571 (Tenn. 1975). So we review the court’s dismissal of the [claims] using the familiar standard of review for a Rule 12.02(6) motion to dismiss. See Webb [v. Nashville Area Habitat for Humanity], 346 S.W.3d [422,] 426-27 [(Tenn. 2011)]. Kauffman v. Forsythe, No. E2019-02196-COA-R3-CV, 2021 WL 2102910, at *3 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 25, 2021). Regarding the review of a dismissal pursuant to Rule 12.02(6), our Supreme Court has elucidated:
A Rule 12.02(6) motion challenges only the legal sufficiency of the complaint, not the strength of the plaintiff’s proof or evidence. The resolution of a 12.02(6) motion to dismiss is determined by an examination of the pleadings alone. . . .
In considering a motion to dismiss, courts “‘must construe the complaint liberally, presuming all factual allegations to be true and giving the plaintiff the benefit of all reasonable inferences.’” Tigg v. Pirelli Tire Corp., 232 S.W.3d 28, 31-32 (Tenn. 2007) (quoting Trau-Med [of Am., Inc. v. Allstate Ins. Co.], 71 S.W.3d [691,] 696 [(Tenn. 2002)]); see Leach v. Taylor, 124 S.W.3d 87, 92-93 (Tenn. 2004); Stein v. Davidson Hotel Co., 945 S.W.2d 714, 716 (Tenn. 1997); Bellar v. Baptist Hosp., Inc., 559 S.W.2d 788, 790 (Tenn. 1978); see also City of Brentwood v. Metro. Bd. of Zoning Appeals, 149 S.W.3d 49, 54 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2004) (holding that courts “must construe the complaint liberally in favor of the plaintiff by . . . giving the plaintiff the benefit of all the inferences that can be reasonably drawn from the pleaded facts”). 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.” Crews v. Buckman Labs. Int’l, Inc., 78 S.W.3d 852, 857 (Tenn. 2002); see Lanier v. Rains, 229 S.W.3d 656, 660 (Tenn. 2007); Doe v. Sundquist, 2 S.W.3d 919, 922 (Tenn. 1999); Pemberton v. Am. Distilled Spirits Co., 664 S.W.2d 690, 691 (Tenn. 1984); Fuerst v. Methodist Hosp. S., 566 S.W.2d 847, 848 (Tenn. 1978); Ladd v. Roane Hosiery, Inc., 556 S.W.2d 758, 759-60 (Tenn. 1977). We review the trial court’s legal conclusions regarding the adequacy of the complaint de novo.
Webb v. Nashville Area Habitat for Humanity, Inc., 346 S.W.3d 422, 426 (Tenn. 2011) (other internal citations omitted).
City of Lavergne v. Gure, No. M2020-00148-COA-R3-CV, p. 3 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 29, 2022).
A trial court’s decision on a 12.02(6) motion presents a question of law, which we review de novo. See Doe v. Sundquist, 2 S.W.3d 919, 922 (Tenn. 1999).
Meade v. Paducah Nissan, LLC, No. M2021-00563-COA-R3-CV, p. 4-5 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 9, 2022).
An essential purpose of a pleading is to give notice of the issues to be tried so that the opposing party will be able to prepare for trial. Abshure v. Methodist Healthcare– Memphis Hosps., 325 S.W.3d 98, 103 (Tenn. 2010). A Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 12.02(6) motion to dismiss a complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted tests the legal sufficiency of the complaint. Lanier v. Rains, 229 S.W.3d 656, 660 (Tenn. 2007). It admits the truth of all relevant and material allegations, but asserts that such allegations do not constitute a cause of action as a matter of law. See Riggs v. Burson, 941 S.W.2d 44, 47 (Tenn. 1997). These motions are not favored and are rarely granted in light of the liberal pleading standards contained in the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure. Dobbs v. Guenther, 846 S.W.2d 270, 273 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1992). Moreover, pleas or counts contained in a complaint will be given the effect required by their content, without regard to the name given them by the pleader. State By and Through Canale ex rel. Hall v. Minimum Salary Dept. of African Methodist Episcopal Church, Inc., 477 S.W.2d 11 (Tenn.1972).
When considering a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, we are limited to an examination of the complaint alone. See Wolcotts Fin. Serv., Inc. v. McReynolds, 807 S.W.2d 708, 710 (Tenn.Ct.App.1990). The basis for the motion is that the allegations in the complaint, when considered alone and taken as true, are insufficient to state a claim as a matter of law. See Cook By & Through Uithoven v. Spinnaker’s of Rivergate, Inc., 878 S.W.2d 934, 938 (Tenn. 1994). Although allegations of pure legal conclusion will not sustain a complaint, see Ruth v. Ruth, 213 Tenn. 82, 372 S.W.2d 285, 287 (Tenn. 1963), a complaint “need not contain in minute detail the facts that give rise to the claim[.]” Donaldson v. Donaldson, 557 S.W.2d 60, 61 (Tenn. 1977); White v. Revco Discount Drug Centers, 33 S.W.3d 713, 718, 725 (Tenn. 2000). Instead, the complaint must contain direct allegations on every material point necessary to sustain a recovery on any legal theory, even though it may not be the theory suggested . . . by the pleader, or contain allegations from which an inference may fairly be drawn that evidence on these material points will be introduced at trial.
Webb v. Nashville Area Habitat for Human., Inc., 346 S.W.3d 422, 427 (Tenn. 2011) (quoting Leach v. Taylor, 124 S.W.3d 87, 92 (Tenn. 2004)).
In short, a Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 12.02(6) motion to dismiss seeks only to determine whether the pleadings state a claim upon which relief can be granted, and such a motion challenges the legal sufficiency of the complaint, not the strength of the plaintiff’s proof. Bell ex rel. Snyder v. Icard, 986 S.W.2d 550, 554 (Tenn. 1999). In considering such a motion, the court should construe the complaint liberally in favor of the plaintiff, taking all the allegations of fact therein as true. See Cook ex. rel. Uithoven v. Spinnaker’s of Rivergate, Inc., 878 S.W.2d 934, 938 (Tenn. 1994). An appellate court should uphold the grant of a motion to dismiss only when it appears that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of a claim that will entitle him or her to relief. Young v. Barrow, 130 S.W.3d 59, 63 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2003).
Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 12.02(6) motions, however, are not designed to correct inartfully drafted pleadings. Dobbs v. Guenther, 846 S.W.2d 270, 273 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1992). However, a complaint should not be dismissed, no matter how inartfully drafted, if it states a cause of action. Id. (citing Paschall’s, Inc. v. Dozier, 219 Tenn. 45, 407 S.W.2d 150, 152 (Tenn. 1966); Collier v. Slayden Bros. Ltd. Partnership, 712 S.W.2d 106, 108 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1985)). Nonetheless, there is no duty on the part of the court to create a claim that the pleader does not spell out in his complaint. Utter v. Sherrod, 132 S.W.3d 344 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2003). But while we should not endeavor to create claims where none exist, we must always look to the substance of the pleading rather than to its form. Dobbs, 846 S.W.2d at 273 (citing Donaldson, 557 S.W.2d at 62).
Doe v. Woodland Presbyterian, No. W2021-00353-COA-R3-CV, p. 19-20 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 3, 2022).
A Tenn. R. Civ. P. 12.02(6) motion admits the truth of all the relevant and material factual allegations in the complaint but asserts that no cause of action arises from these facts. Brown v. Tennessee Title Loans, Inc., 328 S.W.3d 850, 854 (Tenn. 2010); Highwoods Props., Inc. v. City of Memphis, 297 S.W.3d at 700. Accordingly, in reviewing a trial court’s dismissal of a complaint under Tenn. R. Civ. P. 12.02(6), we must construe the complaint liberally in favor of the plaintiff by taking all factual allegations in the complaint as true, Lind v. Beaman Dodge, Inc., 356 S.W.3d at 894; Webb v. Nashville Area Habitat for Humanity, Inc., 346 S.W.3d at 426; Robert Banks, Jr. & June F. Entman, Tennessee Civil Procedure § 5-6(g), at 5-111 (3d ed. 2009). We review the trial court’s legal conclusions regarding the adequacy of the complaint de novo without a presumption of correctness. Lind v. Beaman Dodge, Inc., 356 S.W.3d at 895; Highwoods Props., Inc. v. City of Memphis, 297 S.W.3d at 700.
SNPCO, Inc. v. City of Jefferson City, 363 S.W.3d 467, 472 (Tenn. 2012).
Owens v. Grinspun, No. M2021-00681-COA-R3-CV, p. 3 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 25, 2022).
[W]e apply the standard of review applicable to motions to dismiss. The determination of whether the trial court erred in granting or denying a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted is a question of law. Doe v. Cath. Bishop for Diocese of Memphis, 306 S.W.3d 712, 717 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2008) (citing Farris v. Todd, No. E1999-01574-COA-R3-CV, 2000 WL 528408, at *2 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 3, 2000)). This Court reviews the trial court’s ruling on a Rule 12.02(6) motion to dismiss de novo with no presumption of correctness. Id. (citing Stein v. Davidson Hotel Co., 945 S.W.2d 714, 716 (Tenn. 1997)). “‘[W]e must construe the [plaintiff’s] complaint liberally in favor of the plaintiff, taking all of the allegations of fact therein as true[,]’” Id. (quoting Randolph v. Dominion Bank of Middle Tenn., 826 S.W.2d 477, 478 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1991)), as “[a] motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim for which relief can be granted ‘tests only the legal sufficiency of the complaint[.]’” Id. (quoting Stein, 945 S.W.2d at 716 (Tenn. 1997)).
Simpkins v. John Maher Builders, Inc., No. M2021-00487-COA-R3-CV, p. 11 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 4, 2022).
In considering a motion to dismiss, courts “‘must construe the complaint liberally, presuming all factual allegations to be true and giving the plaintiff the benefit of all reasonable inferences.’” Tigg v. Pirelli Tire Corp., 232 S.W.3d 28, 31-32 (Tenn. 2007) (quoting Trau-Med [of Am., Inc. v. Allstate Ins. Co.], 71 S.W.3d [691,] 696 [(Tenn. 2002)]). 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.” Crews v. Buckman Labs. Int’l, Inc., 78 S.W.3d 852, 857 (Tenn. 2002). We review the trial court’s legal conclusions regarding the adequacy of the complaint de novo.
Webb v. Nashville Area Habitat for Humanity, Inc., 346 S.W.3d 422, 426 (Tenn. 2011) (other internal citations omitted).
Editor’s Note: same language used in State of Tennessee ex rel. Tulis v. Lee, Governor of Tennessee, No. E2021-00436-COA-R3-CV, p. 14 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 24, 2022).
Holmes v. Karkau, No. M2021-00696-COA-R3-CV, p. 6 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 27, 2022).
When considering a motion to dismiss, “courts ‘must construe the complaint liberally, presuming all factual allegations to be true and giving the plaintiff the benefit of all reasonable inferences.’” Id. (quoting Tigg v. Pirelli Tire Corp., 232 S.W.3d 28, 31–32 (Tenn. 2007)). “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.’” Id. (quoting Crews v. Buckman Labs. Int’l, Inc., 78 S.W.3d 852, 857 (Tenn. 2002)). The trial court’s legal conclusions regarding the adequacy of the complaint are reviewed de novo. Id.
Haynes v Perry County, Tennessee, No. M2020-01448-COA-R3-CV, p. 2-3 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 25, 2022).
We review the trial court’s decision on a motion to dismiss de novo without any presumption of correctness. Phillips v. Montgomery Cty., 442 S.W.3d 233, 237 (Tenn. 2014). A Rule 12.02(6) motion to dismiss “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 complaint claim that would warrant relief.” Cannon Cty. Bd. of Educ. v. Wade, 178 S.W.3d 725, 727 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005) (citing Doe v. Sundquist, 2 S.W.3d 919, 922 (Tenn. 1999)).
In evaluating a motion to dismiss, we “construe the complaint liberally, presuming all factual allegations to be true and giving the plaintiff the benefit of all reasonable inferences.” Trau-Med of Am., Inc. v. Allstate Ins. Co., 71 S.W.3d 691, 696 (Tenn. 2002). Viewed in that light, the “complaint must contain sufficient factual allegations to articulate a claim for relief.” Abshure v. Methodist Healthcare-Memphis Hosps., 325 S.W.3d 98, 104 (Tenn. 2010).
Editor’s Note: From p. 6: On a motion to dismiss, we must “read the complaint with a generous eye.” Leach v. Taylor, 124 S.W.3d 87, 92 (Tenn. 2004).
Bibbs v. Durham School Services, L.P., No. E2020-00688-COA-R10-CV, p. 6 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 7, 2022).
The trial court’s denial of Durham’s motion to dismiss “is a question of law, which this Court reviews de novo with no presumption of correctness.” See Heaton v. Mathes, No. E2019-00493-COA-R9-CV, 2020 WL 1652571, at *3 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 3, 2020) (citations omitted). Our Supreme Court has set forth the parameters of our review:
A Rule 12.02(6) motion challenges only the legal sufficiency of the complaint, not the strength of the plaintiff’s proof or evidence. The resolution of a 12.02(6) motion to dismiss is determined by an examination of the pleadings alone. A defendant who files a motion to dismiss admits the truth of all of the relevant and material allegations contained in the complaint, but . . . asserts that the allegations fail to establish a cause of action. In considering a motion to dismiss, courts must construe the complaint liberally, presuming all factual allegations to be true and giving the plaintiff the benefit of all reasonable inferences. 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 v. Nashville Area Habitat for Human., Inc., 346 S.W.3d 422, 426 (Tenn. 2011) (cleaned up). However, this Court is “not required to accept as true assertions that are merely legal arguments or ‘legal conclusions’ couched as facts.” Id. at 427.
Editor’s Note:
Same language used in
Cothern v. Durham School Services, L.P., No. E2020-00796-COA-R10-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 7, 2022).
Franklin v. v. Durham School Services, L.P., No. E2020-00715-COA-R10-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 7, 2022).
Muhammed v. Durham School Services, L.P., No. E2020-00755-COA-R10-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 7, 2022).
Jones v. Smith & Nephew Inc., No. W2021-00426-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 14, 2022).
The resolution of a Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 12.02 motion to dismiss is determined by an examination of the pleadings alone. Trau-Med of Am., Inc. v. Allstate Ins. Co., 71 S.W.3d 691, 696 (Tenn. 2002). A defendant who files a motion to dismiss “‘admits the truth of all of the relevant and material allegations contained in the complaint, but . . . asserts that the allegations fail to establish a cause of action.’” Brown v. Tenn. Title Loans, Inc., 328 S.W.3d 850, 854 (Tenn. 2010) (quoting Freeman Indus., LLC v. Eastman Chem. Co., 172 S.W.3d 512, 516 (Tenn. 2005)). In considering a motion to dismiss, courts “must construe the complaint liberally, presuming all factual allegations to be true and giving the plaintiff the benefit of all reasonable inferences.” Tigg v. Pirelli Tire Corp., 232 S.W.3d 28, 31-32 (Tenn. 2007) (citing Trau-Med of Am., Inc., 71 S.W.3d at 696). 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.” Crews v. Buckman Labs Int’l, Inc., 78 S.W.3d 852, 857 (Tenn. 2002); see also Lanier v. Rains, 229 S.W.3d 656, 660 (Tenn. 2007). We review the trial court’s legal conclusions regarding the adequacy of the complaint de novo with no presumption that the trial court’s decision was correct. Webb v. Nashville Area Habitat for Humanity, Inc., 346 S.W.3d 422, 426 (Tenn. 2011).
The City of Cleveland v. The Health Services and Development Agency, State of Tennessee, No. M2021-00396-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 27, 2022).
Our Supreme Court has discussed the standard of review applicable to motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim as follows:
A Rule 12.02(6) motion challenges only the legal sufficiency of the complaint, not the strength of the plaintiff’s proof or evidence. The resolution of a 12.02(6) motion to dismiss is determined by an examination of the pleadings alone. A defendant who files a motion to dismiss admits the truth of all of the relevant and material allegations contained in the complaint, but … asserts that the allegations fail to establish a cause of action. In considering a motion to dismiss, courts must construe the complaint liberally, presuming all factual allegations to be true and giving the plaintiff the benefit of all reasonable inferences. 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. We review the trial court’s legal conclusions regarding the adequacy of the complaint de novo.
Webb v. Nashville Area Habitat for Humanity, Inc., 346 S.W.3d 422, 426 (Tenn. 2011) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
