Assigned on Briefs Date: July 3, 2017
from the Circuit Court for Montgomery County No.
63CC1-2016-CV-2035 Ross H. Hicks, Judge
trial court dismissed this action as a matter of law for
failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted
pursuant to Rule 12.02(6) of the Tennessee Rules of Civil
Procedure. We affirm.
R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Circuit
Court Affirmed; Case Remanded
Mardoche Olivier, Clarksville, Tennessee, Pro Se.
Mark Nolan and Kathryn W. Olita, Clarksville, Tennessee, for
the appellee, City of Clarksville.
Gregory D. Smith, Clarksville, Tennessee, for the appellee,
Maxx'd Out Towing.
W. McClarty, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which
Frank G. Clement, Jr., P.J., M.S., and Brandon O. Gibson, J.,
MEMORANDUM OPINION 
W. McCLARTY, JUDGE
case arises from the towing of Mardoche Olivier's
("Plaintiff") 2004 BMW parked in front of his
property in Clarksville, Tennessee. Plaintiff filed suit
against the City of Clarksville ("the City"); the
City's officers and employees; and the private entity
that towed the vehicle, Maxx'd Out Towing ("the
towing company"). Plaintiff asserted a myriad of claims
in support of his complaint, including a claim for
conversion. The complaint spans 22 pages and is, at times,
incomprehensible in nature. The court dismissed, sua sponte,
all claims relating to the City's officers and employees
and the towing company for failure to state a claim upon
which relief can be granted pursuant to Rule 12.02 (6) of the
Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure. However, the court allowed
the action to proceed against the City, finding that the
complaint did contain a potentially viable cause of action
City responded to the complaint with a motion to dismiss,
asserting that it was also entitled to dismissal pursuant to
Rule 12.02(6). The City claimed that it was entitled to
immunity and alternatively asserted that Plaintiff failed to
allege a viable cause of action for conversion. The City
explained that Plaintiff failed to establish (1) that
Plaintiff owned the vehicle at issue; (2) that the vehicle
was appropriated for the City's benefit; or (3) that the
vehicle was not made reasonably available for return through
the payment of a fee or other routine requirements.
Plaintiff filed a motion to amend his complaint. The City
objected. The court denied the motion, finding that the
motion was futile because it did not bring any additional
claims or causes of action against the City.
never filed a written response to the motion to dismiss.
Instead, he orally responded at the hearing on the motion. No
transcript or statement of the evidence was filed. Following
the hearing, the court dismissed the action, finding as
1. First, [Plaintiff] failed to comply with [the] Tennessee
Rules of Civil Procedure 8.01, which provides [that the
complaint] shall contain a short and plain statement of the