If no lawyer is listed, call 918-582-6422 and MoreLaw will help you find a lawyer for free.

Defendant's Attorney: Robert F. Tom and Locke Houston Waldrop

Description: Memphis, Tennessee pro se plaintiff did not have a lawyer to represent him in suing Defendant.


Robinson's complaint states that on January 20, 2022, he went to a SunTrust Bank location on Hacks Cross Road in Memphis, Tennessee “to do a bank transaction for [his] business K Movers.” He alleges that he had previously encountered “a negative attitude, unprofessional attitude from a certain African American bank teller and Manager.” ( Robinson and this teller then “had a disagreement” which led to him being asked to leave the bank. (Id.) He complied.

Later, Robinson went to a different SunTrust location “for my normal business transactions and to file a complaint against the SunTrust bank located on Hacks Cross in Memphis, TN for being rude and unprofessional.” (Id.) The teller at this SunTrust branch told Robinson that someone would contact him about the complaint within “a day or two.” (Id.) He was then told that his account was going to be closed in two days, but was never given a reason for the closure. (ECF No. 1-1 at 5.)

As a result of this, Robinson alleges that he has suffered “tremendous distress.” (Id.) Specifically, he states that the closure of his account has caused “mental anguish because [he] cannot access [his] account for payroll.” (Id.) He has also encountered issues getting business done with vendors. (Id.) He finally argues that he is “owed a duty of care by the bank as to why they are closing [his] account.” (Id.)

Robinson filed suit in Tennessee state court on February 7, 2022. (ECF No. 1-1 at 2.) On February 24, 2022, Truist filed a Notice of Removal and brought the case to federal court. (ECF No. 1.) They filed the present motion on March 2, 2022, arguing that Robinson's complaint fails to state a claim or articulate a cause of action. (ECF No. 7-8.) Robinson did not initially respond, but after the undersigned entered an Order to Show Cause, he filed a brief response on April 25, 2022.

* * *


Under Tennessee law, IIED claims require a plaintiff to allege that “the defendant's conduct was (1) intentional or reckless, (2) so outrageous that it is not tolerated by civilized society, and (3) resulted in serious mental injury to the plaintiff.” Akers v. Prime Succession of Tennessee, Inc., 387 S.W.3d 495, 502 (Tenn. 2012) (quoting Rogers v. Louisville Land Co., 367 S.W.3d 196, 205 (Tenn. 2012)) (emphasis in original). “Mere insults, indignities, threats, annoyances, petty oppression, or other trivialities” will not sustain an IIED claim. Strong v. HMA Fentress Cty. Gen. Hosp., LLC, 194 F.Supp.3d 685, 691 (M.D. Tenn. 2016) (quoting Swallows v. Western Electric Co., 543 S.W.2d 581, 582-83 (Tenn. 1976)). The standard for outrageous conduct is high; only acts that are “‘atrocious and utterly intolerable in a civilized community' may establish a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress.” Clark v. Hoops, LP, No. 07-2367 JPM-tmp, 2008 WL 11320001, at *4 (W.D. Tenn. Jul. 1, 2008) (quoting Levy v. Franks, 159 S.W.3d 66, 85 (Tenn. 2004)) (collecting cases). Criminal or tortious conduct does not necessarily satisfy this standard. Lourcey v. Estate of Scarlett, 146 S.W.3d 48, 51 (Tenn. 2004).

Outcome: Motion to dismiss granted.

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: