Pleading, Discovery, and Pretrial Motion Practice (excluding Motions in Limine)
Dismiss, Motion to (on Personal Jurisdiction)
Except as indicated, all indented material is copied directly from the court’s opinion.
Opinions of the Tennessee Supreme Court
Crouch Ry. Consulting, LLC v. LS Energy Fabrication, LLC, 610 S.W.3d 460, 471 (Tenn. 2020).
A trial court’s decision regarding the validity of personal jurisdiction over a defendant presents a question of law. We therefore conduct a de novo review of the trial court’s decision with no presumption of correctness. First Cmty. Bank, 489 S.W.3d at 382; Gordon, 300 S.W.3d at 645. In other words, in this appeal, we conduct the same evaluation of Crouch’s complaint and the parties’ affidavits and supporting papers relating to Lonestar’s Rule 12.02(2) motion as the trial court.
Opinions of the Tennessee Court of Appeals
State v. Bailey, No. M2022-01386-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. July 27, 2023).
“A decision regarding the exercise of personal jurisdiction over a defendant involves a question of law.” Gordon v. Greenview Hosp., Inc., 300 S.W.3d 635, 645 (Tenn. 2009). Accordingly, our review is de novo. First Cmty. Bank, N.A. v. First Tenn. Bank, N.A., 489 S.W.3d 369, 382 (Tenn. 2015).
“The lawful authority of a court to adjudicate a controversy brought before it depends upon that court having jurisdiction of the subject matter and jurisdiction of the parties.” Turner v. Turner, 473 S.W.3d 257, 269 (Tenn. 2015). “A court ‘without personal jurisdiction of the defendant’ is wholly ‘without power to proceed to an adjudication’ binding on that defendant, regardless of the specific reason such jurisdiction is lacking.” Id. at 271 (quoting Employers Reinsurance Corp. v. Bryant, 299 U.S. 374, 381 (1937)). A court obtains personal jurisdiction by service of process. Id. A defendant’s actual knowledge of attempted service does not render the service effective if service was not accomplished in accordance with the rules. Ramsay v. Custer, 387 S.W.3d 566, 568 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2012).
Bowers v. Ditto, No. E2022-01307-COA-R3-CV, p. 5 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 7, 2023).
Sufficiency of service of process is a question of law which we review de novo with no presumption of correctness. Amresco Indep. Funding, LLC v. Renegade Mountain Golf Club, LLC, No. E2014-01160-COA-R3-CV, 2015 WL 1517921, at *2 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 31, 2015) (citing State ex rel. Barger v. City of Huntsville, 63 S.W.3d 397, 398–99 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2001)). Likewise, whether a court has personal jurisdiction over a defendant involves a question of law to which de novo review applies. Turner v. Turner, 473 S.W.3d 257, 268 (Tenn. 2015) (citing Gordon v. Greenview Hosp., Inc., 300 S.W.3d 635, 645 (Tenn. 2009)).
Simmons v. Strickland, No. W2020-01562-COA-R3-CV, p. 4-5 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 13, 2022).
Here, the trial court dismissed the complaint pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 12.02 based on the defenses of lack of jurisdiction over the person, insufficiency of process, and insufficiency of service of process.
“A trial court’s decision regarding the validity of personal jurisdiction over a defendant presents a question of law. We therefore conduct a de novo review of the trial court’s decision with no presumption of correctness.” Crouch Ry. Consulting, LLC v. LS Energy Fabrication, LLC, 610 S.W.3d 460, 471 (Tenn. 2020) (citations omitted). Likewise, we review a trial court’s dismissal of a complaint based on insufficient process, Tenn. R. Civ. P. 12.02(4), and insufficient service of process, Tenn. R. Civ. P. 12.02(5), de novo with no presumption of correctness. See Meersman v. Regions Morgan Keegan Tr., No. M2017-02043-COA-R3-CV, 2018 WL 4896660, at *3 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 9, 2018).
Doe v. Woodland Presbyterian, No. W2021-00353-COA-R3-CV, p. 13 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 3, 2022).
A trial court’s decision regarding the validity of personal jurisdiction over a defendant presents a question of law. We therefore conduct a de novo review of the trial court’s decision with no presumption of correctness. First Cmty. Bank, 489 S.W.3d at 382; Gordon, 300 S.W.3d at 645. In other words, in this appeal, we conduct the same evaluation of [the] complaint and the parties’ affidavits and supporting papers relating to [the] Rule 12.02(2) motion as the trial court.
Crouch Ry. Consulting, LLC v. LS Energy Fabrication, LLC, 610 S.W.3d 460, 470-71 (Tenn. 2020).
Compher v. Whitfield, No. M2021-00474-COA-R3-JV, p. 5 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 1, 2022).
This is an appeal of a dismissal pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 12.02(6). “The standards by which our courts should assess and dispose of a Rule 12.02(6) motion to dismiss are well-established and have been clearly and consistently applied” for decades now. Webb v. Nashville Area Habitat for Humanity, Inc., 346 S.W.3d 422, 426 (Tenn. 2011). Our Supreme Court has summarized the standard of review for a Rule 12.02(6) motion to dismiss 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.
Lemon v. Williamson Cnty. Schs., 618 S.W.3d 1, 11-12 (Tenn. 2021) (quoting Webb, 346 S.W.3d at 426 (citations omitted)).
Baskin v. Pierce & Allred Contruction, Inc., No. M2021-00144-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 28, 2022).
As recently stated by our Supreme Court:
A defendant may challenge the existence of personal jurisdiction by filing a motion to dismiss the complaint under Rule 12.02(2) of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure. The defendant may choose to support the motion with affidavits or other evidentiary materials. If a defendant does so, the plaintiff must respond with its own affidavits or other evidentiary materials. First Cmty. Bank, N.A. v. First Tenn. Bank, N.A., 489 S.W.3d 369, 382 (Tenn. 2015); Gordon [v. Greenview Hosp., Inc.], 300 S.W.3d [635], 644 [Tenn. 2009]. However, a Rule 12.02(2) motion is not converted to one for summary judgment when the parties submit matters outside the pleadings. State v. NV Sumatra Tobacco Trading Co., 403 S.W.3d 726, 739 (Tenn. 2013); Gordon, 300 S.W.3d at 644. The plaintiff bears the burden—albeit not a heavy one—of establishing that the trial court may properly exercise personal jurisdiction over a defendant. First Cmty. Bank, 489 S.W.3d at 382; Gordon, 300 S.W.3d at 643. When a defendant supports its Rule 12.02(2) motion with affidavits or other evidentiary materials, the burden is on the plaintiff to make a prima facie showing of personal jurisdiction over the defendant through its complaint and affidavits or other evidentiary materials. To make a prima facie showing of personal jurisdiction under Tennessee law, the factual allegations in the plaintiff’s complaint, affidavits, and other evidentiary materials must establish sufficient contacts between the defendant and Tennessee with reasonable particularity. First Cmty. Bank, 489 S.W.3d at 383. In evaluating whether the plaintiff has made a prima facie showing, the trial court must accept as true the allegations in the plaintiff’s complaint and supporting papers and must resolve all factual disputes in the plaintiff’s favor. Sumatra, 403 S.W.3d at 739. However, the court is not obligated to accept as true allegations that are controverted by more reliable evidence and plainly lack credibility, conclusory allegations, or farfetched inferences. First Cmty. Bank, 489 S.W.3d at 382. Nevertheless, the court should proceed carefully and cautiously to avoid improperly depriving the plaintiff of its right to have its claim adjudicated on the merits. Gordon, 300 S.W.3d at 644. A trial court’s decision regarding the validity of personal jurisdiction over a defendant presents a question of law. We therefore conduct a de novo review of the trial court’s decision with no presumption of correctness. First Cmty. Bank, 489 S.W.3d at 382; Gordon, 300 S.W.3d at 645. In other words, in this appeal, we conduct the same evaluation of [the] complaint and the parties’ affidavits and supporting papers relating to [the] Rule 12.02(2) motion as the trial court.
Crouch Ry. Consulting, Inc. v. LS Energy Fabrication, Inc., 610 S.W.3d 460, 470-71 (Tenn. 2020).
