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 

February 21, 2011 

VIA ELECTRONIC FILING AND U.S. MAIL

Honorable Susan D. Wigenton, United States District Court Judge 

United States District Court 

MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR. FEDERAL BUILDING & COURTHOUSE

50 Walnut Street – Room 5060 

Newark, New Jersey 07101 

Re: Russell-Brown v. The University of Florida Board of Trustees et al., No. 10-cv-04017-SDWMCA 

Dear Judge Wigenton: 

I represent Plaintiff Sherrie Russell-Brown in the above-referenced matter. I write to correct 

three false statements of law made to Your Honor by the Oxford Defendants in their Reply 

Memorandum, filed on Monday, February 14, 2011 (Docket Entry No. 67). Please accept this letter 

brief in lieu of a more formal brief. 

First, the Oxford Defendants falsely state that the fact that they (as well as the University of 

Florida Defendants) were served with process in New Jersey, under New Jersey’s Court Rules on 

service on corporations (4:4(a)(6)), does not authorize this Court to exercise personal jurisdiction 

over them and does not comport with Due Process. (Docket Entry No. 67 at 3, n.2). To the 

contrary, as the United States Supreme Court has made plain, “[t]here can be no serious question 

that the exercise of personal jurisdiction over one who is personally served within the territorial 

jurisdiction of a court comports with due process.” See Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U.S. 714, 722, 24 

L.Ed. 565 (1878); see also, Burnham v. Sup. Ct. of Cal., 495 U.S. 604, 619, 110 S.Ct. 2105, 109 

L.Ed.2d 631 (1990) (“The short of the matter is that jurisdiction based on physical presence alone 

constitutes due process because it is one of the continuing traditions of our legal system that define 

the due process standard of ‘traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.’ That standard 

was developed by analogy to ‘physical presence,’ and it would be perverse to say it could now be 

turned against that touchstone of jurisdiction.”). Here, again, service of process on the Oxford and 

Case 2:10-cv-04017-SDW -MCA Document 73 Filed 02/22/11 Page 1 of 3 PageID: 1446
2

University of Florida Defendants in New Jersey authorizes this Court to exercise personal 

jurisdiction over them and accords with Due Process. 

Second, the Oxford Defendants falsely state that it is “perfectly appropriate” for this Court 

to dismiss, on the grounds of forum non conveniens, even though no defendant besides Oxford is 

subject to personal jurisdiction in England. (Docket Entry No. 67 at 8). Again, to the contrary, as 

the Third Circuit has made plain “[t]o be a suitable alternative forum, the foreign jurisdiction must 

have jurisdiction over all defendants.” See Lacey v. Cessna Aircraft Co. (“Lacey II”), 932 F.2d 170, 

177, 185 (3rd Cir. 1991); see also, Watson v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 769 F.2d 354, 357 (6th Cir. 

1985) (“This court is reluctant to adopt the above analysis to support dismissal of these actions in 

their entirety pursuant to the forum non conveniens doctrine, as it essentially abolishes the critical 

requirement of the threshold showing, as mandated by the Supreme Court and articulated in Dowling, 

that the individual defendants be subject to jurisdiction in an alternative forum prior to the trial 

court’s undertaking of a balance of interests.”); Hyatt Int’l Corp., et al. v. Coco, et al., 302 F.3d 707, 

718 (7th Cir. 2002) (“The first inquiry [in a forum non conveniens analysis] requires a finding that all 

the parties are within the jurisdiction of the alternative forum and are amenable to process there.”); 

Reid-Walen v. Hansen, 933 F.3d 1390, 1402 n.2 (8th Cir. 1991) (“An alternative forum is available if 

all parties are amenable to process and come within the jurisdiction of the forum.”); Dole Food Co., 

Inc. v. Watts, 303 F.3d 1104, 1118-19 (9th Cir. 2002) (Dismissal, on grounds of forum non 

conveniens, not warranted given that one of the defendants had not agreed to the jurisdiction of the 

foreign court). 

For example, in Karunamunige Chamila Krishanthi, et al. v. Rajakumara Rajarathnam, et al., 

No. 09-cv-05395 (DMC)(JAD) (D.N.J. Aug. 26, 2010) (Docket Entry No. 48), Judge Cavanaugh 

reserved judgment as to the issue of forum non conveniens pending supplemental briefing 

concerning whether Sri Lankan courts would, in fact, exercise long-arm jurisdiction over the 

American citizen defendants, Raj and J.M. Consequently, in their supplemental briefs, the American 

citizen defendants consented to Sri Lankan jurisdiction and conditioned dismissal, on the grounds of 

forum non conveniens, upon that consent. Here, the American citizen Oxford (North America) 

and University of Florida Defendants have neither consented to personal jurisdiction in England nor 

conditioned dismissal, on the grounds of forum non conveniens, upon that consent. 

Third, the Oxford Defendants falsely state that the “Third Circuit has explicitly applied 

[Monell’s “policy or custom” test] to an action under section 1983 against a private corporation,” 

citing to Natale v. Camden County Correctional Facility, 318 F.3d 575, 583 (3rd Cir. 2003). (Docket 

Entry No. 67 at 11). To the contrary, the Third Circuit makes plain in Natale that Prison Health 

Services (PHS) - - the entity against whom the Third Circuit applied Monell’s “policy or custom” 

test - - is a state actor and that its employees are considered “prison officials.” 318 F.3d 575, 581, 

n.4, 582-83 (“The District Court noted in its written opinion that ‘PHS concede[d] that it is a state 

actor’ . . . Because PHS is a state actor, employees of PHS are considered prison officials.”). Again, 

here, as private actors, section 1983 liability of the Oxford and Media Defendants is based upon 

their conspiracy with the state actors, the University of Florida Defendants (Docket Entry No. 44-2, 

¶¶ 148-150) and the Oxford and Media Defendants remain subject to section 1983 liability even if 

the state actors are immune from and/or dismissed from this suit (Dennis v. Spark, 449 U.S. 24, 27-

29 (1980); Melo v. Hafer, 912 F.2d 628, 638 n.11 (3rd Cir. 1990)) and even if Ms. Russell-Brown’s 

petitions or grievances to the government address matters of purely private concern (San Filippo v. 

Bongiovanni, 30 F.3d 424, 443 (3rd Cir. 1994)). 

Case 2:10-cv-04017-SDW -MCA Document 73 Filed 02/22/11 Page 2 of 3 PageID: 1447
3

Finally, now that the Oxford and University of Florida Defendants have both moved to 

dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction (see Docket Entry Nos. 46, 47 and 63) and the Oxford 

Defendants’ motion, with a motion date of February 22, 2011, is now fully briefed, in the event that 

the Court finds more facts are needed to resolve the issue of personal jurisdiction, Ms. RussellBrown respectfully renews her requests for jurisdictional discovery (see Docket Entry Nos. 13, 31, 

58, 65 and 71). See, e.g., Karunamunige Chamila Krishanthi, et al. v. Rajakumara Rajarathnam, et al., 

No. 09-cv-05395 (DMC)(JAD) (D.N.J. Aug. 26, 2010) (Docket Entry No. 48) (wherein Judge 

Cavanaugh reserved judgment as to the issue of personal jurisdiction over Tamils Rehabilitation 

Organization, Inc., pending the conclusion of jurisdictional discovery); Qtech Services, LLC. v. 

Veriton Fund Mgmt., LLC et al., No. 10-cv-00495 (DMC)(MF), 2010 WL 4961636, at *3 (D.N.J. 

Nov. 30, 2010) (wherein Judge Cavanaugh denied defendants’ motion to dismiss without prejudice, 

pending the conclusion of jurisdictional discovery). 

Thank you for your consideration. 

 

 Respectfully submitted, 

 

 /s/ Lennox S. Hinds 

LSH/sbt 

cc: All Counsel of Record (via CM/ECF) 

Case 2:10-cv-04017-SDW -MCA Document 73 Filed 02/22/11 Page 3 of 3 PageID: 1448