Stevens, Hinds & White, P.C. 

HOPE R. STEVENS (1904-1982) 

JAVIER A. WHITE (1945-1987) 

LENNOX S. HINDS * 

Of-Counsel: 

 JULIETTE CHINAUD 

 GNOLEBA R. SERI * 

 DIDIER SEPHO◊

Also in 

* New Jersey 

◊ Paris 

 

ATTORNEYS AT LAW 

116 WEST 111TH STREET 

NEW YORK, NY 10026 

 TEL: (212) 864-4445 

FAX: (212) 222-2680 

 E-MAIL: lawfirmshw@yahoo.com

 

NEW JERSEY OFFICE 

42 VAN DOREN AVENUE 

SOMERSET, NJ 08873 

(732) 873-3096 

 PARIS OFFICE 

 27, AVENUE DE L’OPERA

 75001 PARIS 

November 29, 2010 

VIA ELECTRONIC FILING AND FAX (1-973-297-4906) 

Honorable Madeline Cox Arleo, United States Magistrate Judge 

United States District Court 

MARTIN LUTHER KING COURTHOUSE 

50 Walnut Street – Room 2060 

Newark, New Jersey 07101 

Re: Russell-Brown v. The University of Florida Board of Trustees et al., No. 10-cv04017-SDW-MCA 

Dear Judge Arleo: 

I represent Plaintiff Sherrie Russell-Brown in the above-referenced matter. Respectfully, I 

write to advise Your Honor that on November 24, 2010, in response to the Oxford and Media 

Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss, filed October 8, October 12 and November 15, 2010 (Docket 

Entries 24, 26 and 36, respectively), Ms. Russell-Brown filed a Second Amended Complaint (Docket 

Entry 39) against all of the Defendants. The filing renders moot the Defendants’ Motions to 

Dismiss. See, e.g., Hughes v. Panasonic Consumer Electronics Co. et al, No. 2:10-cv-00846 

(SDW)(MCA) (Docket Entry 13, June 4, 2010) (wherein Your Honor administratively dismissed, 

without prejudice, defendants’ motions to dismiss and to strike and ordered defendants to file an 

answer or otherwise re-file their motions to dismiss and to strike, addressing all claims set forth in 

the amended complaint); Merritt v. Fogel, 349 Fed.Appx. 742, 745 (3rd Cir. 2009) (wherein the Court 

of Appeals held that the filing of the amended complaint rendered moot defendants’ motion to 

dismiss and that there were no motions to dismiss properly pending when the District Court 

dismissed the plaintiff’s complaint). 

Further, last week, before filing the Second Amended Complaint, I asked counsel for the 

Gainesville Defendants, Mr. Ian Marx, whether he would accept service of the Second Amended 

Complaint on behalf of his clients – counsel for each of the Defendants, including Mr. Marx, have 

raised that the Gainesville Defendants have not yet been served in this action (see, e.g., Docket 

Case 2:10-cv-04017-SDW -MCA Document 40 Filed 11/29/10 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 742
2

Entries 15 at 2 and 36-1 at 3, n.2). Consequently, I anticipate having served the Second Amended 

Complaint on the Gainesville Defendants, by the end of this week, December 3, 2010. 

In sum, all of the Defendants will be responding, contemporaneously, to the Second 

Amended Complaint. 

Thank you for your consideration. 

 

 Respectfully submitted, 

 

 /s/ Lennox S. Hinds 

LSH/sbt 

cc: Zoe Eva Jasper, Esq., Attorney for Defendants the University of Oxford and Oxford 

University Development (North America), Inc. (via CM/ECF) 

 

Bruce Rosen, Esq., Attorney for Defendants ALM Media, LLC, William L. Pollak and Karen 

Sloan (via CM/ECF)

Case 2:10-cv-04017-SDW -MCA Document 40 Filed 11/29/10 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 743