Chancellor v. Pottsgrove School District

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• explaining that although the Third Circuit has not yet addressed the issue, seven other circuit courts have addressed the tension between Rule 15(a) and Rule 16(b
• noting that “a party is presumptively not diligent if, at the commencement of the lawsuit, the party knows or is in possession of the information that is the basis for that party’s later motion to amend”
• denying motion to amend for lack of good cause but stating that had good cause been demonstrated, the next inquiry would be under Rule 15(a)
• denying motion to amend filed five months after deadline for amended pleadings where the movant “possessed the relevant knowledge on which to base [the proposed amendment] at the outset of the litigation”
• denying summary judgment for defendant on the deliberate indifference element of a Title IX claim where a principal failed to report an alleged sexual relationship between a student and teacher to the superintendent as required by the school’s sexual harassment policy
• characterizing deliberate indifference as a clearly unreasonable response, and stating that if a school official took timely and reasonable measures to end the harassment, such response would not constitute deliberate indifference even if the efforts were unsuccessful

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).