The recent decision in Auxin, LLC v. DW Interests, LLC, No. M2022-01087-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 25, 2023), addresses the rather rare “motion for judgment on the pleadings.
In Auxin, LLC plaintiffs sued defendants asserting various claims related to a real estate development contract. Defendants filed a counter-claim for breach of contract, but also included a claim for intentional misrepresentation. Plaintiff filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings as to the counterclaim for intentional misrepresentation.
The Court explained that
A motion for judgment on the pleadings “is filed pursuant to [Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 12.03] and is similar to a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim except that it is made after an answer is filed rather than before.” Edwards v. Urosite Partners, No. M2016-01161-COA-R3-CV, 2017 WL 1192109, at *3 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 30, 2017) (citations omitted). As we explained in Laundries, Inc. v. Coinmach Corp., No. M2011-01336-COA-R3-CV, 2012 WL 982968 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 20, 2012), when the party moving for judgment on the pleadings is the plaintiff, “we treat as false the allegations of the complaint which have been denied, and treat as true all well-pleaded facts in [the defendant’s] pleadings and all reasonable inferences arising therefrom.” Id. at *8 (citing McClenahan v. Cooley, 806 S.W.2d 767, 769 (Tenn. 1991)). However, “[c]onclusions of law are not admitted nor should judgment on the pleadings be granted unless the moving party is clearly entitled to judgment.” City of Morristown v. Ball, No. E2020-01567-COA-R3-CV, 2021 WL 4449237, at *4 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 29, 2021) (citations omitted).
Thus, in the instant case, because Defendants are the nonmoving parties, we must treat as false all allegations denied by Defendants, and assume all factual allegations by Defendants as true. See Laundries, Inc., 2012 WL 982968, at *8.
Id. at *8.
On appeal, the appellate court will apply this standard of review:
“When reviewing orders granting a Tenn. R. Civ. P. 12.03 motion, we use the same standard of review we use to review orders granting a Tenn. R. Civ. P. 12.02(6) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.” Young v. Barrow, 130 S.W.3d 59, 63 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2003) (citing Waller v. Bryan, 16 S.W.3d 770, 773 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1999)). Thus, we review a trial court’s decision de novo with no presumption of correctness. Id. (citing Stein v. Davidson Hotel Co., 945 S.W.2d 714, 716 (Tenn. 1997)).
Id.