While there is no requirement that the claim be pleaded with particularity under Rule 9(b), the Tennessee Court of Appeals has required plaintiffs to plead their claims of civil conspiracy with "some degree of specificity." Lane v. Becker, 334 S.W.3d 756, 763 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2010) (citing McGee v. Best, 106 S.W.3d 48, 64 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2002)); Hagen v. U-Haul Co., 613 F. Supp. 2d 986, 996-97 (W.D. Tenn. 2009). But what this standard means is not clear.

Id. at 623 (emphasis added) (citations omitted); see also Leach v. Taylor, 124 S.W.3d 87, 92 (Tenn. 2004) (citing Bain); Davis v. Covenant Presbyterian Church, No. M2013-02273-COA-R3-CV, 2014 WL 2895898, at *6-7 (Tenn Ct. App. June 23, 2014) (quoting Bain) Lane v. Becker, 334 S.W.3d 756, 763 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2010) ("the conduct must be atrocious"). "[T]he outrageousness requirement is an 'exacting standard' which provides the primary 'safeguard' against fraudulent and trivial claims."

Tennessee law defines an actionable civil conspiracy as “a combination of two or more persons who, each having the intent and knowledge of the other's intent, accomplish by concert an unlawful purpose, or accomplish a lawful purpose by unlawful means, which results in damage to the plaintiff.” Lane v. Becker, 334 S.W.3d 756, 763 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2010) (quoting Trau-Med of Am., Inc. v. Allstate Ins. Co., 71 S.W.3d 691, 703 (Tenn. 2002)). The elements required for liability are: “‘(1) a common design between two or more persons, (2) to accomplish by concerted action an unlawful purpose, or a lawful purpose by unlawful means, (3) an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy, and (4) resulting injury.'” Pagliara v. Moses, 605 S.W.3d 619, 627 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2020) (citation omitted).

Consistent with its function, a civil conspiracy "'requires an underlying predicate tort allegedly committed pursuant to the conspiracy.'" Lane v. Becker, 334 S.W.3d 756, 763 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2010) (quoting Watson's Carpet & Floor Coverings, Inc. v. McCormick, 247 S.W.3d 169, 180 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2007)); see also Wachter, 387 F. Supp. 3d at 849. "Conspiracy, standing alone, is not actionable where the underlying tort is not actionable." Id.

a combination of two or more persons who, each having the intent and knowledge of the other's intent, accomplish by concert an unlawful purpose, or accomplish a lawful purpose by unlawful means, which results in damage to the plaintiff.Lane v. Becker, 334 S.W.3d 756, 763 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2010) (quoting Trau-Med, 71 S.W.3d at 703). To be liable under a theory of civil conspiracy, one or more Defendants must be liable for an underlying tort that was committed pursuant to the conspiracy.

a combination of two or more persons who, each having the intent and knowledge of the other's intent, accomplish by concert an unlawful purpose, or accomplish a lawful purpose by unlawful means, which results in damage to the plaintiff. Lane v. Becker , 334 S.W.3d 756, 763 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2010) (quoting Trau-Med of America, Inc. v. Allstate Ins. Co. , 71 S.W.3d 691, 703 (Tenn. 2002) ). The elements of a civil conspiracy include " ‘common design, concert of action, and an overt act.’ "

Outrageous conduct does not include "mere insults, indignities, threats, annoyances, petty oppression or other trivialities." Lane v. Becker et al., 334 S.W.3d 756, 763 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2010); Levy v. Franks, 159 S.W.3d 66, 83 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2004); Arnett v. Domino's Pizza I, LLC, 124 S.W.3d 529, 539 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2003) (quoting Bain, 936 S.W.2d at 622). A plaintiff seeking damages for intentional infliction of emotional distress must meet an "exacting standard."

Thus, the trial court may reasonably dismiss this legal theory as a matter of law." Lane v. Becker, 334 S.W.3d 756, 763 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2010) (internal citation omitted); see also Vanderbilt Univ. v. Pesak, No. 3:08-cv-1132, 2011 WL 4001115, at *13 (M.D. Tenn. Sept. 8, 2011) ("It is the Court's duty in the first instance to apply the standard and make a preliminary determination as to 'whether the defendant's conduct may reasonably be regarded as so extreme and outrageous as to permit recovery.'") (citing Bain, 936 S.W.2d at 623).

Outrageous conduct does not include "mere insults, indignities, threats, annoyances, petty oppression or other trivialities." Lane v. Becker et al., 334 S.W.3d 756, 763 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2010); Levy v. Franks, 159 S.W.3d 66, 83 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2004); Arnett v. Domino's Pizza I, LLC, 124 S.W.3d 529, 539 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2003) (quoting Bain, 936 S.W.2d at 622). A plaintiff seeking damages for intentional infliction of emotional distress must meet an "exacting standard."

"Lane v. Becker, 334 S.W.3d 756, 763 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2010) (quoting Trau-Med of Am., Inc. v. Allstate Ins. Co., 71 S.W.3d 691, 703 (Tenn. 2002)). The elements of a civil conspiracy include '"common design, concert of action, and an overt act.'"