Kegerise v. Susquehanna Township School District

United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania · 2016 · Civil Procedure

321 F.R.D. 121 (2016)

Updated July 29, 2026

Civil ProcedurePleadingAnswersRule 8(b)Judgment on the PleadingsFed. R. Civ. P. 8(b)Rule 8(b)(4)Rule 8(b)(5)

Facts

Plaintiff Dr. Susan M. Kegerise, the former superintendent of the Susquehanna Township School District, sued the School District and three school board members, alleging among other things that her discharge violated federal and state law. In responding to the third amended complaint, defendants answered a number of allegations by partially admitting and partially denying without addressing the remainder, by stating that allegations were conclusions of law requiring no response, and by claiming lack of knowledge as to matters plaintiff argued were within defendants' knowledge or readily obtainable. Plaintiff contended these answers violated Rule 8(b) and sought to have the corresponding allegations deemed admitted. The court focused only on the sufficiency of the pleadings responses, not the merits of the underlying discharge claims.

Issue

When an answer to a complaint contains partial denials that do not address the remainder of an allegation, states that legal conclusions require no response, or claims lack of knowledge about matters within the party's knowledge or reasonably available to it, does Rule 8(b) permit those responses? If not, should the court deem the allegations admitted or instead allow amendment of the answer?

Rule

Under Rule 8(b), a party responding to a pleading must admit, deny, or state that it lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegation. If a party denies only part of an allegation, Rule 8(b)(4) requires it to admit the part that is true and deny the rest. Rule 8(b) does not allow a party to refuse to respond on the ground that an allegation is a conclusion of law, even if the allegation is purely legal. A party may not invoke lack of knowledge under Rule 8(b)(5) when the matter is obviously within its knowledge or when reasonable effort would obtain the information.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In federal court in Denver, Maya Ortiz sues Front Range Transit Solutions and alleges in one paragraph that the company hired her in March 2021, assigned her to the night shift in June 2021, and cut her pay in August 2021 after she complained about safety conditions. The company's answer states: "Admitted that Maya Ortiz was hired in March 2021. Denied that her pay was cut after any safety complaint."

Is the company's response sufficient under Rule 8(b)?

Explanation. Rule 8(b)(4) requires a party that denies only part of an allegation to admit the part that is true and deny the rest. A response that admits one segment and denies another but leaves a remaining assertion unanswered is defective. The court's approach is to require a conforming amended answer rather than automatically enter judgment.