IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

GAINESVILLE DIVISION 

SHERRIE RUSSELL-BROWN, 

 Plaintiff, 

CASE NO. 1:09-cv-00257-MP-AK 

v. 

 

THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA, 

BOARD OF TRUSTEES, 

THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA, 

LEVIN COLLEGE OF LAW, and 

ROBERT H. JERRY, II, in his 

individual and official capacities as 

Dean of the University of Florida, 

Levin College of Law, 

Defendants. 

___________________________________/ 

PLAINTIFF’S SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A REPLY 

MEMORANDUM TO DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES (DOCS. 130, 133) TO 

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL, WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE (DOC. 129)

 

Pursuant to N.D. Fla. Loc. R. 7.1(C), Plaintiff Sherrie Russell-Brown (“Plaintiff” or “Ms. 

Russell-Brown”) respectfully moves this Court for Leave to File, no later than the end of the day, 

Monday, August 16, 2010, a Reply Memorandum in further support of her Motion for Voluntary 

Dismissal Without Prejudice (Doc. 129). There is “good cause.” Defendants have, again, made 

material misrepresentations of law and fact in their Response. In support of her Motion, Ms. 

Russell-Brown states as follows:

1. On Friday, August 13, 2010, Ms. Russell-Brown filed a Motion for Voluntary 

Dismissal Without Prejudice (Doc. 129), explaining that she has not had and will not have a full and 

fair opportunity to be heard on the merits of her case. Under these circumstances, Ms. Russell-Brown 

is unable to pursue her action before the Court and, certainly, the Court cannot further compound the 

issue by forcing her to do so. 

Case 1:09-cv-00257-MP -AK Document 136 Filed 08/16/10 Page 1 of 5
2

2. On Monday, August 16, 2010, in their Response in Opposition (Doc. 130), the 

Defendants erroneously argue that: 1) the Court enjoys broad discretion whether or not to allow a 

plaintiff to voluntarily dismiss her action; 2) although they did not serve Ms. Russell-Brown with 

their Counterclaim, voluntary dismissal should be conditioned upon their Counterclaim remaining 

pending for independent adjudication, and Ms. Russell-Brown should be directed to respond to the 

Counterclaim; 3) the Court condition voluntary dismissal, without prejudice, on the assessment of 

“costs,” should Ms. Russell-Brown re-file the same complaint, against the same Defendants in the 

same venue. 

3. Also, on Monday, August 16, 2010, the Defendants supplemented their Response in 

Opposition (Doc. 133), now arguing that the Court should force Ms. Russell-Brown to pursue her 

claims before this Court. 

4. The Defendants are incorrect and, again, misstate facts, including the factual and 

procedural posture of the instant action. More importantly, however, the Defendants, again, 

mischaracterize the relevant legal authority. 

5. The Defendants’ misstatements and mischaracterizations create good cause for 

granting leave to file a reply. See, e.g., Infinite Energy, Inc. v. Thai Henry “Hank” Chang, No. 1:07-

CV-023-SPM, 2008 WL 419530, at * 1-2 (N.D.Fla. Sept. 9, 2008) (Mickle, C.J.) (granting leave to file 

a reply memorandum where the defendant’s response misstated the facts and mischaracterized the 

applicable law). 

6. For example, factually, Ms. Russell-Brown has not “re-filed” several of her claims 

against the Defendants in the District of New Jersey (“DNJ”). The Defendants have not been 

served in the action in New Jersey. Further, this Court has absolutely no authority or jurisdiction to 

act as the Defendants’ proxy to force Ms. Russell-Brown to pursue, before this Court, claims 

appropriately venued and filed in the DNJ. 

Case 1:09-cv-00257-MP -AK Document 136 Filed 08/16/10 Page 2 of 5
3

7. On July 15, 2010, Ms. Russell-Brown moved for leave to file a First Amended 

Complaint, to add the University of Oxford (“Oxford”) as a party, as well as new factual allegations 

and causes of actions (Doc. 98). The Defendants opposed the Court permitting Ms. Russell-Brown 

to amend her original Verified Complaint (Doc. 45), to add Oxford, the new factual allegations and 

causes of actions (Doc. 113). Ms. Russell-Brown has the right to pursue the new factual allegations 

and causes of action, against Oxford and the Defendants, in a separate action. Consequently, as 

explained in her Notice of Withdrawal of her Motion for Leave to File a First Amended Complaint 

(Doc. 126, ¶ 5), Ms. Russell-Brown reviewed and re-evaluated the discovery upon which the 

amendments to her Verified Complaint are based and decided to withdraw her Motion for Leave 

to File a First Amended Complaint and her First Amended Complaint, from this Court. 

Consequently, the Court terminated the Motion on August 9, 2010 (Doc. 128). 

8. As explained in the DNJ Complaint (Doc. 133-1, ¶ 5), venue is proper in the District 

Court of New Jersey because “[a] substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claims 

occurred in New Jersey. All of the operative facts of retaliation were committed in New Jersey. The 

relevant records and documents are located in New Jersey. Many of the individuals with personal 

knowledge regarding the post-Release retaliation against Ms. Russell-Brown, including prospective 

employers, are located in New Jersey. The Defendants’ witnesses, if any, are likely to be employees 

whose presence can be obtained by the Defendants. Finally, New Jersey State law governs the claims 

of civil conspiracy and defamation.” 

9. Again, the Defendants have not been served in the New Jersey action and this Court 

has absolutely no authority or jurisdiction to act as the Defendants’ proxy to force Ms. RussellBrown to pursue before this Court, claims appropriately venued and filed in the DNJ. 

Case 1:09-cv-00257-MP -AK Document 136 Filed 08/16/10 Page 3 of 5
4

WHEREFORE, Ms. Russell-Brown respectfully requests this Honorable Court for an order 

granting her leave to file a reply to the Defendants’ Responses (Docs. 130, 133) to her Motion for 

Voluntary Dismissal, Without Prejudice (Doc. 129). 

DATED this 16th day of August, 2010. 

 Respectfully submitted, 

/s/ Lennox S. Hinds

Lennox S. Hinds 

New York Bar No. 8196 

Stevens, Hinds & White, PC 

116 West 111th Street 

New York, NY 10026-4206 

(212) 864-4445 

(212) 222-2680 (fax) 

lawfirmshw@yahoo.com 

Attorney for Plaintiff 

Case 1:09-cv-00257-MP -AK Document 136 Filed 08/16/10 Page 4 of 5
5

CERTIFICATE OF COUNSEL 

As of this filing, I was unsuccessful in reaching Defendants’ counsel for the purpose of being 

able to report to the Court, the Defendants’ position on the herein motion. 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on August 16, 2010, the foregoing has been filed with the Clerk 

of the Court and served electronically by using the CM/ECF system, upon the following: 

Ian S. Marx, Esq. 

Greenberg Taurig, LLP 

200 Park Avenue 

Florham Park, NJ 07932 

Richard C. McCrea, Jr., Esq. 

Greenberg Taurig, LLP 

Courthouse Plaza, Suite 100 

625 East Twiggs Street 

Tampa, FL 33602 

Attorneys for Defendants 

/s/ Lennox S. Hinds

Lennox S. Hinds 

Attorney for Plaintiff 

 

Case 1:09-cv-00257-MP -AK Document 136 Filed 08/16/10 Page 5 of 5