(Docket No. 89 at 5.) Under Tennessee law, an allegation of promissory fraud is not sustainable based on the simple showing that a promise of future action was not performed. Eddings v. Sears Roebuck Co., 2002 WL 1592540, *4 (Tenn.Ct.App. July 19, 2002). Rather, the party alleging promissory fraud must put forth some evidence, beyond mere speculation, to show that the promise was made without the intent to perform.
More recently, the Tennessee Court of Appeals has required that "direct proof" is necessary to show a lack of intention, and circumstantial evidence will no longer suffice. Eddings v. Sears Roebuck Co, 2002 WL 1592540, at *6 (Tenn.Ct.App. 2002). Promissory fraud is not a separate cause of action under Tennessee law, as defendant suggests in its reply brief ( see Def.'s Reply at 20-21).