Moufak Sakaan v. FedEx Corporation, Inc., W2016-00648-COA-R3-CV

Plaintiff Moufak Sakaan, a former FedEx employee, signed a confidential severance agreement on March 2, 2013, after being assured acceptance would not bar him from working on FedEx projects staffed through third-party vendors.
After leaving FedEx, Sakaan was hired by third-party vendor Tango and on December 19, 2013 was identified at a FedEx meeting as having accepted the severance and was removed; he has not worked on FedEx projects since.
Sakaan sued on April 21, 2015 alleging intentional and negligent misrepresentation and sought $600,000 in compensatory damages; defendants answered and then moved for judgment on the pleadings asserting the claims were time-barred.
The trial court granted judgment on the pleadings, concluding the claims were torts "for injuries to the person" governed by the one‑year statute of limitations (Tenn. Code Ann. § 28‑3‑104), and dismissed with prejudice.
On appeal, Sakaan argued the claims sounded in contract (six‑year or three‑year limitation), that defendants waived the statute‑of‑limitations defense, that the motion was unripe, and that the court improperly relied on materials outside the pleadings.
The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding the gravamen of the claims was a personal tort subject to the one‑year limitations period, that the defenses were not waived, and that the trial court properly considered only the pleadings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether claims are tort or contract (controls limitation)	Sakaan: claims are contract‑based (3‑ or 6‑year limitations)	Defendants: claims are tortious misrepresentations (1‑year limitation)	Held: claims are torts to the person; 1‑year statute (§ 28‑3‑104) applies
Timeliness of suit	Sakaan: suit timely under longer limitations	Defendants: suit untimely under 1‑year rule; accrual on Dec 19, 2013	Held: accrual Dec 19, 2013; complaint filed Apr 21, 2015 — untimely under 1‑year; dismissal affirmed
Waiver of statute‑of‑limitations defense	Sakaan: defendants admitted complaint was timely and thus waived the defense	Defendants: answers also asserted the defense; they gave fair notice in motion papers	Held: no waiver; admission was a legal conclusion and defendants fairly preserved the defense
Adjudicative procedure (ripeness / matters outside pleadings)	Sakaan: motion premature; court relied on summary materials without Rule 56 procedure	Defendants: motion was proper Rule 12.03 after pleadings closed; court limited review to pleadings	Held: pleadings were closed; court confined decision to pleadings and did not err in treating the motion as Rule 12.03 motion

Rast v. Terry, 532 S.W.2d 552 (Tenn. 1976) (judicial admissions in pleadings are conclusive until withdrawn)
Irvin v. City of Clarksville, 767 S.W.2d 649 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1988) (admissions in pleadings are judicial admissions)
John P. Saad & Sons, Inc. v. Nashville Thermal Transfer Corp., 642 S.W.2d 151 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1982) (distinguishing factual admissions from legal conclusions)
Estate of Brown v. 402 S.W.3d 193 (Tenn. 2013) (statute of limitations is an affirmative defense challenging claim sufficiency)
Steed Realty v. Oveisi, 823 S.W.2d 195 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1991) (failure to timely plead statute‑of‑limitations defense results in waiver unless opposing party had fair notice)
George v. Building Materials Corp. of America, 44 S.W.3d 481 (Tenn. 2001) (failure to specifically plead limitations defense does not waive it if opposing party had fair notice)
Timmins v. Lindsey, 310 S.W.3d 834 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2009) (Rule 12.03 motion tests legal sufficiency and admits well‑pleaded facts)
Benz‑Elliott v. Barrett Enterprises, LP, 456 S.W.3d 140 (Tenn. 2015) (courts determine the gravamen of a claim by considering legal basis and injury)
McClenahan v. Cooley, 806 S.W.2d 767 (Tenn. 1991) (on motion to dismiss, well‑pleaded allegations of the plaintiff are taken as true)