Cobb v. Tennessee Valley Authority, 1:13-cv-01321

Cobb, an incompetent adult with dementia, resides in Brownsville, TN, with next friend and power of attorney Mallardi.
On December 7, 2011, Cobb’s vehicle was struck at the South Grand/Highway 19 Bypass by an TVA employee or agent who allegedly negligently failed to yield.
Cobb’s complaint was filed December 6, 2013, asserting TVA negligence and seeking relief via next friend.
TVA moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) or for summary judgment under Rule 56, arguing time-bar and lack of state-law tolling.
The court provisions and standard of review for 12(b)(6) motions were discussed, including consideration of extrinsic documents.
The court ultimately dismissed Cobb’s complaint as time-barred under Tenn. Code Ann. § 28-3-104(a)(1) and § 28-1-106 (as amended in 2011).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the 2011 amendment to § 28-1-106 creates a new objective tolling standard.	Plaintiff argues amendment is terminology-only, not a new standard.	TVA contends amendment imposes actual adjudication of incompetence.	Amendment creates a new objective standard.
Whether Cobb’s claim is time-barred under the one-year limitations period.	Plaintiff asserts tolling applies due to incompetency.	Defendant asserts the accident occurred before restoration of legal rights, timing bars suit.	Complaint time-barred.
Whether the complaint may survive under tolling or exceptions to limitations.	Plaintiff claims tolling would render action timely.	Court should not interpret tolling to extend beyond statutory text.	No tolling exception applied; action dismissed as untimely.
Whether Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal was proper given the statute-of-limitations issue.	Plaintiff contends extrinsic documents should not convert the motion.	Court may resolve limitations on a Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal without converting to summary judgment.	Dismissal proper under 12(b)(6) as time-barred.

Terry v. Tyson Farms, Inc., 604 F.3d 272 (6th Cir. 2010) (standard for reviewing pleadings on motion to dismiss)
Jones v. City of Cincinnati, 521 F.3d 555 (6th Cir. 2008) (pleading standards and grounds for relief)
Twombly v. Bell Atl. Corp., 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (plausibility pleading standard)
Reid ex rel. Martiniano v. State, 396 S.W.3d 478 (Tenn. 2013) (statutory interpretation and tolling principles (state law))
Wyatt v. A-Best, Inc., 910 S.W.2d 851 (Tenn. 1995) (statute of limitations accrual rule for injury actions)
Pennington v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 553 F.3d 447 (6th Cir. 2009) (statutory interpretation and tolling considerations)
Amos v. Metro. Gov’t of Nashville & Davidson Cnty., 259 S.W.3d 705 (Tenn. 2008) (importance of verb tense in statutory phrases)