NCAA is a recipient of federal funds because it is an entity which receives federal financial assistance through another recipient and operates an educational program or activity which receives or benefits from such assistance.” App. at 98. This allegation plainly alleges that the NCAA receives dues from member institutions, which receive federal funds. As discussed above, this allegation would be sufficient to bring the NCAA within the scope of Title IX as a recipient of federal funds and would survive a motion to dismiss. If a district court concludes that an amendment is futile based upon its erroneous view of the law, it abuses its discretion in denying a plaintiff leave to amend to include a legally sufficient allegation. See Centifanti v. Nix, 865 F.2d 1422, 1431 (3d Cir.1989) (<HOLDING>). Thus, if the district court denied Smith
holding that trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying motion to amend complaint because the proposed amendment would have been futile holding that district court had not abused its discretion in denying plaintiffs motion to amend complaint holding that the district court which erred in its conclusion that there was jurisdictional defect abused its discretion in denying a plaintiffsmotion for leave to amend his complaint because the proposed amendment would not cure the jurisdictional defect holding that the district court abused its discretion in denying leave to amend after a delay of eight months holding that a violation of the forum defendant rule is a jurisdictional defect