short span of time i didn't pay attention it was granted within the how long of the oh that meant it filing ok the amended falling was in june of two thousand and fifteen what's your point it was short was it how much how long no are you claim and both claims are punitive damages and then we're also making the point of taking the position that the district court erred in granting our motion to to or for leave to amend the complaint once it was of the mind that it should be dismissed now it's our position that it totally meets the and i know this is a of often hard call twit box so the twig ball standard it it's place position that the twig ball standard is most certainly mad and if the district court was of the mind that it wasn't then leap to man should have been granted and that oh well the district court says it consist of a single sentence in your response praised it does not set forth any proposed amendment or argument as to whether an amendment would meet the legal standard governing and that's the federal rule of civil procedure that saf and so don't shoot me that it would have been much more likely that the district court would have granted your motion for leave to  me and if you had found the separate motions setting forth the specific problems that you get to did of fat in your complaint based on the fact that the pleading standards were different in federal court and he i believe it's k u while eighty operates under a different different pleading standard it's not a rule fifteen percent it's a little more stricter because it's under the private securities litigation the palest a may get the acronym wrong but it's a higher standard so of some of your problem not because it got our attention but when this one sentence seems inadequate or it's appeared inadequate to the district well all that would would require in the rules and be favor that says if a district court is inclined to dismiss the case then leave to remain and should be granted you're going to dismiss it dismissed it without prejudice and grant us leave to amend now like the court to to requesting moral argument that it's our position it's a given that the district court respectfully erred in dismissing the title on client and i want to make it clear here under the acknowledge standard under the twelve b sixteen if a district court is going to take an inference against the non movement it has to take the recent inference in the non movement's favor in this case the district court took an the court went on to hang its hat on the statement of black letter law that title nine does not protect against sexual harassment based upon someone's sexual orientation and our pl we read it and he was beaten with a belt or now he was beaten with a belt at school he was beat with your learned opponent here stands up he's going to talk to you talk about the fact that your motion to a man didn't comply with federal rules seven that didn't include grounds what do you say to that well there this goes back to the argument that are you going to know what the grounds are going to be to you know what the  bonds at fault there is no what it that's one thing it's a non sequitur you're saying hey look you should an onus you should be pressure enough to realize what needs to be fixed before the person is going to make the decision what need to be fixed tells you what's wrong here's the here's the statement of what you said i mean that's not tellin the district court why are you might need to amend it's not telling the district court what the substance of your minute would be i can't imagine that you can fathom to case that should freely grant leave to a man well that's true but you're are mad a cry to a b and in federal court and you know you might have told the district court some of what you said to us and some some little glimmer of fact there's this court has reminded district courts that under the twit all standards that the facts allez in a complaint don't need to be persuasive only plausible has plausible claims been pl goes in and here's why is because in the state your claim that i wanted to address though the point i want to make in a row is i've got rebuttal but in white vs lawrence the tis the supreme court stated black letter law that suicide is not per se an intervening claim it does break your calls and especially if you have certain exceptions that apply here and what we have here is there's two exceptions the custodial exception and the special relationship exception which tennessee has adopted in the recent second restatement of torts three fourteen a that was adopted in satterfield case and what is that custodial relationship or special relationship it's in loco p and when spencer take was there at the school he was unmercifully bullied he was he was new to this culture he came from periwinkle he's a freshman there he was he was bullied to the point calling the names told me should go home and kill himself which he did concerning a special relationship the exception to tennessee's general rule that suicide is an intervening cause the cases the council cites and the reliance upon the restatement really is it's apples and oranges when you look at the two lines of cases talking about special relationships talking about special relationships in terms of the  about situations in which in action can be found to be a breach of duty of care it's not talking about an exception to the intervening cause proximate  cause framework of white and morris and and the other cases dealing with dealing with intervening cause and suicide the special relationship that's being talked about in those cases are clearly situations dealing with as exemplified in that language more akin to a patient and a doctor situations in which the person to whom liability is being would have known or reason to know of someone's risk or tendencies for suicide so even though the term special relationship is used in both it's really not talking about the same situation or being used in the same way primarily focused his argument on the denial of the motion to amend and the i think we view that as under the discretionary statement but in as much as we know that the price of the view about that is that it should be free freely granted what's your best argument that that was denied here do you argument is that freely granted has to be in the context of the nature of the amendment there has to be some grounds to show that that justice requires it there has to be some grounds to show that it's not futile there has to be otherwise the the the the it becomes a a virtually meaningless rule from the point of view of there's no there's no standard that must be met and i think that the when he talks about the pronouncing that correctly case in talking about that being in a political because it was a pos or a case the court i think makes clear at the end that that's really not the reason at the end the court says that the fact that the securit principle as well that rule seven requires grouchier abuse of discretion correct it's not abuse of a discretion so i think that the that especially when viewed from the abuse of discretion standard i think that the the flaw in councils argument dealing with the inference or what reasonable inference should be given and whose favorite should be given if you look at the district court's order what the district court is saying is that there is insufficient evidence to to survive a rule twelve b six motion insufficient allegation insufficient facts your allegation evatt at some insufficient factual allegations and that the only inference that could be given from the alec factual allegations that are made would be one of a motivation based upon sexual orientation now telling us that that's not the inference that we wanted but when you look at the the factual allegations that are made there is no other grounds no other facts that are alleged that relate in any way to gender nonconforming behavior a lot that's applicable to the the child in question was in fact homosexual or perceived as homosexual does it no it does not it goes to the it goes to the motivation for say by the students correct but when you look at specifically the vicar's case that i think is the most instructive from this court on the where that where you draw that line in terms of the inference or what the what the factual allegations the minimum factual allegations that must be made i think it's clear that that it's not just even if the complaint had said that the that there were seeking title nine relief under the gender nonconforming for behavior theory which it doesn't say that there have to be factual allegations about what the gender nonconforming behavior or appearance that was exhibited at the school what that was and there's nothing in the complaint in the amended complaint about that and i think that that really is what the district court was was highlighting  its reference to the reasonable inference when it said the most that could be that could be inferred based upon the derogatory name calling was a perception of of sexual orientation the school liable for a student suicide requires more then a a a just blanket allegation that  in any case where bullying takes place a school knows or should know that a particular person might commit suicide such that they could be held liable for that event but that's inconsistent and contrary to the case law in tennessee both dealing with suicide as an intervening cause intervening cause but also with regard to the standard of for school liability for acts of students and all of the cases well you know i think that probably even under the existing law you could hypothesize and allege that situation that might well whereas a school might well be held responsible me for example if it had been brought to the school's attention that the bullying had occurred if it had been brought to the school's attention what the state of my mind the student who alternately killed himself was and if the school had knowledge of those things it would probably be forseeable to the excuse that something might happen like the child commits suicide given how impulsive teenagers are all the other hand none of that is a lid edged in this comply but you don't think tennessee law would preclude a finding of liability in the situation that are outlined now i think i think what tennessee law would require specifically that point that you mentioned that some knowledge war or known or should have known that this particular student was at risk had suicidal tendencies had self inflicting harm propensities some reacted to the bully that is correct and i also think one factor that the is also relevant to this is that when we talk about the the timeline of the events that the child was was at father rhyme and i think that the even when you look at just cases across the country dealing with some allegation of  support those cases but i think that the idea that he was hit with a belt seems pretty darn egregious to me but is that part of the bullying or is that the custom at this  holdings in this case are completely consistent with this court's precedent as well as tennessee state court precedent in all the areas that are alleged and if th one of the exceptions under to see the law to whether or not suicide is an intervening cause is again because a custodial relationship and or a special relationship we've cited this in our brief in section three fourteen of in a particular incident when it's not strictly lab billeted for people who have a special relationship it's not big but then it may be that may be a question more appropriate for most for summ specifically stated that student on student bullying could lead to victim suicide now we've also cited in our papers too that there are six circuit case on from other circuits that say that it doesn't have to be in a complaint for rule twelve six if it's a matter of common knowledge or public record these are public records that's the point we made to the district court in two thousand and ten almost four years of orderly that the requirement is that every school make sure bullying curds and if it fails to do so it's responsible for anything that happens to a student no and that would be an unworkable standard oh it's not because you can't do that that's just against human nature but the style's case styles x rail d s versus granger county tennessee which is in part a tom one case that came out from this court earlier this year talks about goes through and sets forth the promise facia what has to be pleaded to plead to a title on complaint claim we did that here now what this court found in styles was that the court was not lawrence and judge trawlers opinion smith versus foster talk about how the school didn't have to know the middle stake of the student it's whether or not the focus is supposed to be whether or not there are negative conduct made that suicide lockley based upon the but vickers is a title seven case and where is this case is more advanced and phillips were you talking about the name calling in the physical abuse especially in bands because he was beat with a belt in the one last thing i want to leave as we were doing our while i wrote the opinion it is a person i would say it's applicable here i mean like it or not what would it be distinguishable here's why because the plaintiff in vickers was trying to bootstrap and that language is used in opinion trying to in essence make a claim for being homosexual and get harassed for being homosexual work but he exhibited no gender nonconforming behavior at work whereas here i don't even know that mr vickers klein to be saved well he said he said he  little cornish about he never really came out but i think mr i think mr vickers klein was that he was either you know i don't know that he said either homosexuals or perceived to be homosexual but i