Kegerise v. Susquehanna Township School District

Susan Kegerise (plaintiff) was a superintendent at Susquehanna Township School District (defendant). Kegerise was fired by the school. Kegerise brought suit, alleging her discharge violated state and federal law. Several members of the school board were included in the suit. Kegerise filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings. In her motion, Kegerise argued that the school district’s responses to her allegations were insufficient under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(b). Specifically, Kegerise highlighted several complaints and responses. In one response, the school denied part of the allegation, admitted part of the allegation, but ignored the rest of the allegation. In several responses, the school board stated that the allegations were conclusions of law to which no response was required. In other responses, the school board stated it did not have the knowledge to respond. To this, Kegerise argued that the allegations were about the personal knowledge of a board member who was one of the defendants, so the knowledge should exist to properly answer the allegation. Kegerise argued that the school district (1) violated Rule 8(b)(4) by denying part of an allegation and admitting part of it, but without stating that the rest of the allegation was denied; (2) violated Rule 8(b) by stating that some allegations were conclusions of law that did not require a response; and (3) claimed a lack of knowledge when it did have knowledge. Kegerise thus contended that the corresponding allegations should be deemed admitted. The case was heard in federal court.