Correspondence from Chambers to Williams, Guinier, Smith, and Suitts; Order; Suggestion of Mootness and Motion to Dismiss; Memorandum in Support of Suggestion of Mootness and Motion to Dismiss

    L.
,..

CHAMBERS, FERGUSON, WATT, WALLAS, ADKINS & FULLER, P.A.

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

SUITE 73O EAST INDEPENDENCE PLAZA

95I SOUTH INDEPENDENCE BOULEVARD

CHARLOTTE, NORTH CAROLINA 28202
TELEPHONE 1704t 375-e461

October 9, 1981

JULIUS LEVONNE CHAMBERS

JAMES E. FERGUSON. II

MELVIN L. WATT

JONATHAN WALLAS
KARL ADKINS

JAMES C, FULLER. JR.

C. YVONNE MIMS

JOHN W, GRESHAM

RONALD L- GIBSON

GILDA F, GLAZER
LESLIE J, WINNER

Mr. Napoleon B. Williams
NMCP LegaL Defense & Educational

Fund, Inc.
10 CoLr:mbus Circle, Suite 2030
New York, New York 100L9

I"Is. Lani Guinier
NAACP Legal Defense & Educational-

Fr:nd, Inc.
805 15th Street, Northwest
WashingEon, D. C. 20006

I'{r. Norman B. Smith
Smith, Patterson, Fo1lin,

Curtis, James & Harkawy
704 Southeastern Building
Greensboro, North Carolina 2740L

Mr. Steve Suitts
Executive Director
Southern Regional CounciL
75 Marietta Street, Northwest
Atlanta, Georgia 30303

Re: Gingles v. Edmisten

I am enclosing copies of
(1) Order of Judge

Lhe following docr:ments :

Dupree of October 7;

Support of Suggestion of Mootness
Disur-iss, along with affidarrits and

cover the documents that you wanted

/1
pincerely yours,

' I -rr/- /^'r
.X.','{" Ct .* U,,,r/-*7^

i' J) -I,eVonne Chambers

to Dismiss, and
(2) Defendants' Suggestion of Mootness and Motion

(3) Memorandr:m in
and Motion to
attachments.

Norman, the attachments
to forrrard to you.

JLC: j ch
Enclosures



EB
ocT 1 $01

$$ms rrssi\.H";.J 
*r$''o *

ORDER
, €t aI.,
fend.ants

Plaintiffs i this action are four bLack citizens who sue

on behalf'of th Ives and all other black citizens who are eligible

vote in North Carolina. They seek declaratory and.

to prevent any election from being conducted pur-

tionment adopted by the North Carolina General

or election of representatives to that body and to

Congress. Plaintiffs aIlege violations of Sections

ing Rights Act of 1965, 42 U.S.C. SS 1973 and 1973c,

nth and, Fifteenth Amendments to the United States

nfo.g.ced pursuant to 4.2 U,-E. C. SS 1981. and 19 83.

.C. S 1973c plaintiffs request that a three-judge

nts as violatj-ve of the Voting Rights Act of

ORDERED that notice of the pendency of this action

tion for injunctive and declaratory relief be given

, United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth

that he may designate in accordance wiLlt 2E U.S.C. S

ges to sit with the undersigned judge as members of

ring and determination of this action; and it is

ORDERED that a certified copy..of this order be

rable Harrison Winter, Chief Judge of the United'

peals, Baltimore,

DUPREE, JR.

specific
1965,

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT
EASTERN DISTRICT OP NORTH

RALEIGH DIVISION

1.,

Iaintiffs

h.
RALPH GINGLES, €t

vs.

RUT'US EDMISTEN,

and registered to

injunctive relief

suant to the appo

Assembly in 198I.

the United States

2 and 5 of the Vo

and of the Fourt

Constitution, as

Pursuant to 42 U.

district court be

It appearing

actions of defen

it is '.
I

and of the applic

to the Chief Judg

Circuit, in order

2284 two other j

this court for h
ar

further

FILED
couRr ocT -?l98l
CAROLINA

J. RICH LEONARD, CLERK
S. DISTRICT COURT
E. DIST. NO. CAR.

t

llo. 81-1803-CrVL5

convened to hear and decide this action.

to the court that plaintiffs have challenged

/

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE



IN TH
FOR THE

MLPH GINGIES, et.

P lain ti f
v.

RUFUS L. EDMISTEN,

Defendan

The defendants

First Clain, and po

be dismissed withou

judge court, for th

Voting Rights Act o

that the issues inv

is no justiciable c

with respect to sai

This Motion is
Secretary -Director

sworn to on 0ctober

and authorities, an

act ion .

Respectfully s

UNITED STATES DISTRICT
ASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH

RALEIGH DIVISION

CIVI t
1.

s,
)
)
)
)
)
)

,)
)
)

t. al.

SUGGESTION OF MOOTNESS
AND

, MOTION TO DISMISS

in the aboye-entitled action move that
tions of Plaintiffs' Fifth and Seventh

prejudice and that the convocation of
purpose of determining natters under S

1965, as anended, be declined, for the

P lainti ffs
Claims,

a three-

5 of the

lved in said claims have become moot and

re as on

there

e or controversy on which this Court can act

claims.

sed on the attached affidavit of Alex K. Brock

the State Board of Elections of North Carolina

1981, oD the attached nemorandum and points

f

6,

on all pleadings, papers and records in this

mitted, this the 7t}. day of October, 1981.

RUFUS t. EDMISTEN
ATTORNEY GENEML

Raleigh, North Carolina 2760?,
Telephone: (919) 733-3377

Tiare Sniley
Norna Harrell
Assistant Attorneys General

s /waJ.lace, Jr.
DeputTf Attorney Ge

i fyt Lega1 Affair
,/C. Attorney General rs Office
st Office Box 629



I hereby certif
Suggestion of llootn

attorneys by placi

States Post Office,

rhis tn" -7t a

CERTIFTCATE OT' SERVTCE

that I have this day served the foregoj-ng

ss and Motion to Dismiss upon plaintiffs I

a copy of said Pleading in the thited
postage prepaid, addressed to:

J. Levonne Chambers
Leslie l{inner
Chambersn Ferguson, Slatt, WalIas,

Adkins & Ful1er, P.A.
951 South Independ.ence Boulevard
Charlotte, I'Iorth Carolina 28202

Jack Greenberg
James M. Nabrit, III
Napeoleon B. Inlilliams, ,Jr.
10 Columbus Circle
IIew York, New York 10019

of October, 198I,



I

I

I

| ;r I ---, -1. 
.

I

POR rryE EASTERN DISTRTCT OF, I.IORTH CAROI,II.IA
I RALEIGH DMSION , iii[]li !-iil:i,t:, i i::,rri
| 

".i,'::.:' l'r 
,

| .rvrl No. si:so3-erv-s
RALPH GINGLES, €r. lr., )llPlaintiffs, )

I I MEI,ToRANDUM rN suppoRT oFv. | ) SUGGEsTror.r OF MooTNEsS

RUFUs EDMrsrEN, €t. 1"t., i 
AND MorroN ro Drsltrss

t)
oefendarf ts. )

I

I

I STATEMENT OF FACTSl-
on september 16l 1981, plaintiffs f.i.led their action in

the united states ol=trict court for the Eastern District of
North Carolina. cud.talIy, Plaintiffs challenge the constitu-
tionality of North darorina's apportionment plans for the

I

House of Representa{ives and senate of 1ilre General Assembly

and for the Second Jna rourth Congressional Districts and a1lese
official noncomplru.f". with the voting Rights Act of 1965, s5,

I

42 u.s.c. 51973c. I

IThis Memorandurn,ltj-tea in support of Defendants' suggestion
of Mootness ana uot:.lon to Dismiss, addresses itserf sorely to
Plaintiffs' First cdu=-* for Re1ief and to those portions of the
rifth and seventrr c:.laims for Rerief which are founcled on s5 of

Ithe voting Rights Adt. other relevant facts are set forth in
the Argument U.f orr. 

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I



PI,AINTIFFS t FIRST
DISMISSED.

Plaintiffs' Fir
SS3 (3) and 5 (3) of
two sections prohi

of districts for el
Representatives of
complain that these

1968, constituted c

which should have

the United States o
Columbia for precle

1955 and that they

request the convoca

to " (d) eclare that '

Carolina Constituti

Act of 1965r ds ame

provisions until an

been submitted and

(Complaint, pp. L2-

Failure of the

for approval pursua

understandable, if
law establishing w

requirements vras s

legislation and f
or certifying the r ults of any election pursuant to an apportion-
ment which was ena in accorCance with these constitutional

-2-

ARGUMEIIT I

II4 FOR RELTEF IS MOOT AND SHOULD BE

t Claim for Relief relates to Article II,
he Constitution of North Carolina. These

t the division of counties in the formation
tion of members to the Senate and House of

North Carolina General Assembly. plaintiffs

rovisions, adopted in 1967 and effective in
anges in North Carolina's elections procedures

en submitted either to the Attorney General of
to the District Court for the District of

rance under 55 of the Voting R.ights Act of
ve never }:een so submitted. plaintif f s

ion of a three-judge court and pray the Court

ticle II, 53(3) and 55(3) of the North

are in violation of 55 of the Voting Rights

ed, .ancl enjoin <lefendants from enacting any

conducting, supervisirg, participating in,

unless these constitutional provisions have

proved in accordance with 42 U.S.C. 51973i .

, Prayer for Relief tt3).

ate to submit these constitutj.onal provisions

to 55 of the Voting Rights Act was at Least

t proper, Ert the time of their adoption, Case

types of State actions triggered preclearance

ty at that time. Even the landmark case of
A1len v. State Boar of Elections, 393 U.S. 544, 89 S.Ct. 817 , 22 L.
Ed. 2d 1 (1969), wa not decided until 1969, As set out in the

Brock, Secretary-Director of the State Board

memorandum of Joirn -canders attached tlrereto,

Affidavit of Alex K.

of Elections, and t



the constitutional
-represent changes i
interpreted and app

of North Carolina h

divisions of counti
The General Assembl

legislative distric
constitutionally pe

failed to recognize

to division of coun

though the language

Without admitti
challenged provisio

contenti_on that the

Accordingly, as ind

information regardi

to the Attorney Gen

September 22, 1981,

L967 enactments,

By letter of Sept

that further info
days. !' (Brock Af f i

1981, Brock provid

all legislative ena

in North Carolina s

By letter of Sept

(Brock Affidavit, A

*The constituti
Drum v. Seawell tira
@rd1requirements. 249
(1e66).

-3-

rovisions in question did not seem to
elections-procedure. At feast as

ied, the relevant constitutional provisions
d alrvays forbidden all but the most limited
s in apportionment of legislative districts.
had never divid.ed counties in establishing

s even to the limited extent vier^red as

ssible. Consequently, state officials
ny change in practice or procedure relating

ies in forming legislative districts even

of the constitutional provisions did change.*

error in the failure in Lg67 to submit the

:, the State chooses not to contest plaintiffs'
provisions shoulC have been submitted.

ated in the Brock Affidavit, fu1l and,complete

the 1967 enactments has nor^r been submitted

aI of the tlnited .ctates. By }etter of
rock informed the Attorney General of the

9 other things. (Brocl< Affidavit, Attachment I).
r 23, 1981, Brock advised the Attorney General

ion would be fonvarded ,,in a matter of a fevr

vit, Attachment II). Furtherr oD September 24,
the Attorney General , by maiL, t.rith copies of

ts regarding constitutional propositions
L967, (Brock Afficlavit, Attachment III) .ce

r 28, 1981, additional information vras submittecl,

chment IV).

al amendment was triggered by the
old provisions requirlng at l_east

ruling in
one senator
constitutional
383 u.s. 831

s of population, violated federal
.Supp. 87'l (M.O.N,C, 1965) , aff id,



With the submis

Attorney General fo
no remaining 55 que

has repeatedly outl
be raised under 55

by private litigan

Court ruled that pr

that a new state en

proving that the St

for g5 approval, th
injunction against

of the legislati-on
8l'1 , 926 , 22 L. Ed.

in such cases "the.
must be submitted f
at 826. Even in an

litigants, the Cour

necessity for appro

proeedures. I'Ialhat

Congress expressly

for the District of
determination whet

purpose or effect I

account of race or

385, 91 s.cr. 437,

such an acti-on must

state requirement i
to the required fed

This interpretation
on the scope of the

Attorney General is
limitation inheres

Court for the Distr

-4-

ion of the constitutional prov..i_sions to the

his approval, the State contends there is
tion before this Court. The Supreme Court

ned the limits of the questions rshich rnay

actions hrought in local district courts
. In A11en v. State Board of Elections, the

vate litigants could "seek a declaratory judgment

ctment is governed try 55. Further, after
te has failed to submit the covered enactment

pri-vate party has standing to obtain an

ther enforcement, pending the State's submission

ursuant to 55." 393 U.S. 544, 555, g9 S.Ct.
d I (1969). The Court further observed that,
Iy question is luhether the nevr leqislation

r approval." Id., at 555-56, n. !9,99 S.Ct.,
action properly instituted under 55 by private
may not consj-der any question beyond the

aI of the change in voting practices or

s foreclosed to such district court is what

served for consideration by the District Court

lumbia or the Attorney General - the
a covered change does or does not have the

f denying or abridging the right to vote on

1or.r" Lerkr5_ v. Matthews, 4OO U,S. 379,

35, 27 L.Ed. 2d 476 (1971) . The inquiry in
"U-mited to the determination vrhether 'a

covered by 55, but has not treen subjected

al scrutiny. r" Id., at 383, 9I S.Ct. at 434.

as reaffirmed in a ruling that the same restriction
cal court's inquiry applies even vrhen the

e plaintiff or a party to the action. ,'The

Congress I determinatj-on that only the District
t of Columbia has jurisdiction to consider the



t coverage ' questio

of Warren Count ss., 429 U.S. 642, 646, 97.S.Ct. 933, 935,

issue of whether a

account of race and

51 L.Ed. 2d 106 (19

Thus, the only

Voting Rights Act b
by private litigant
voting practices or
action brought by t
of Columbia. The

C1aim for Relief is
constitutional proh

tive districting fo
question has been

tional provisions

Claim for Relief,

should consequently

these provisions or
time limitr rro furt
to Plaintiffs excep

General t s decision

Gressette, 432 U.S.

s06 (L977) Plaint
for alIeging, that
the Attorney Genera

Plaintiffs have not

since the Attorney

for or submissions

the spring primarie

to retain jurisdic

Defendants request

for Relief and decl

$5 purposes.

-5-

roposed change actually discriminates on

that other district courts may consicler 55

. " Unj-ted States v. Board of Supervisors

7).

uestion for consideration under 55 of the
this Court or by any court in a suit hrought
is the necessity for submission of specific

procedures to the Attorney General or via an

State in the District Court for the District
Iy question raised by plaintiffs in their First
the failure of the State to submit the Lg67

bi-ti ons against division of counties in legisra-
approval pursuant to 42 u.s.c. Sl9Z3c. That

ted by the State's submission of the constitu-
the Attorney General, and plaintiffs' First

sed solely on 55 of the rTsglnq Rights Act,
be dismissed. If the Attorney General approves

fails to object to them vrithin the sixty-day
r challenge to their enforcement is available
on constitutj-ona1 grounds. The Attorney

of to object is not revielable, Morrj-s v,
49tt 506-07, 97 s.ct. 24tt, 242L, 53 L.Ed. 2d,

ffs have not allegedn nor is there any basis

e State is 1ike1y to ignore an objection by

, should one Lre forthcoming. Since the

ought preliminary injunctive relief and

neral's decision, barring repeated requests
additional material, would necessarily precede

, there is no conceivable reason for the Court
n of Plaintiffst 55 cl-aim. Accordingly,
at the Court dismiss plaintiffs' First Claim

e the convocation of a three-judge Court for



PI,AINTIFFS I FTFTH
DTSMISSED TO THE
RIGIITS ACT OF 1965,

-6-

ARGUMENT II

D SEVENTH CLAT},IS FOR RHLTEF SHOULD BE
ENT THAT THEY ARE BASED ON 55 OF THE VOTTNG
AS AMENDED.

Plaintiffs seek

Relief on both SS 2

(Complaint, p. 11,

directed at alleged

the North Carolina

Relief is aimed at
ment of congression

have not alleged an

failed to submit ei
apportionment plans

Rights Act. Indeed

in fact submitted t
indicated by the B

Argument T, the on

Eastern Di-strict of
Voting Rights Act i
General of the Unit

District of Columbi

to base their Fifth and Seventh Claims for
and 5 of the \zoting piohts Act of 1965.

t169, 771 . Tl"Ie Fifth Claim for Re1ief is
inadequacies in the 1981 apportionment of
eneral Assembly. The Seventh Claim for
Ileged inadequacies in the 1981 reapportion-
1 districts in North Carolina. plaintiffs

here in their Complaint that the State has

her the legislatj-ve or congressional

for approval pursuant to 55 of the Votinq
all three 1981 reapportionment plans r,rere

the Attorney General in a timely mannerr ds

ck Affidavit. As discussed in the preceding

y question for the District Court for the
llorth Carolina to consiCer under 55 of the

Al1en v. State Board of Elections, 393 U.S.

2 L.Ed. 2d 1 (1969) , Where plaintiffs have

lure to submit the apportionment pIans, and

the necessity for preclearance by the Attorney
d States or by the District Court for the
. See United States v. Board of Supervisors

of Warren County, s.r 429 U.S. 642, 97 S.Ct. 833, 51 L.Ed. 2d

106 (1977); perkins v. Matthels, 400 U.S. 379t 9I S.Ct. 431, 27

L.Ed. 2d 476 (1971)

544, 89 s.ct . BLl,

not even alleged fa
indeed could not do

no 55 question is p

Defendants urge thi
Claims for relief i

so since the plans have in fact been submltted,
rIy before the Court. For these-reasons,

Court to dismiss plaintiffs' Fifth and Seventh

sofar as they are based on 55 of the Voting
Rights Act, as ame d.



rHe oisrnicr
UNDER 55 OF
.]UDGE COURT.

COURT
THE

Plaintiffs have

pursuant to 28 U.S.

A1). That section

be convened in acti
congressional or le
as required by Act

brought under 55 of
are actions for wlri

required by Act of

Court has determine

by private litigant
clearance requireme

for which three-ju

S1973c and 28 U.S.C

Elections, 393 U.S.

Even though thi
requiring that a th
is not necessary to

moot or those porti

Re1ief relying upon

which is insubstant

recognized that a tI
controlling statuto
judge court. E.9.,
7 L.Ed. 2d sL2 (196

93 S.Ct. 854, 35 L.

apply to actions ba

lnstance, the purpo

thwarted by allovrin

NG

-7-

ARGU}IENT TIT

allo snour,p piiurss
RIGHTS ACT WITHOUT

PLAINTIFFS I CLAII{S
CONVENT}IG A THREE-

reguested that a three-judge court be convened.

. 52284, (Complaint, p. L2, prayer for Relief
equires that a district court of three judges

ns challenging the constitutlonality of
islative apportionments and in other actions

f Congress. 28 tI.S.C. S2284 (a) . Actions
the Voting Rights Act of 1965r ES amend.ed,

h three-judge courts have been expressly

ongress. 42 U.S.C. S1973c. The Supreme

and repeatedly affirmed that actions brought

to determine the applicability' of the pre-
ts of 55 of the Voting Rights Act are actions

courts are required pursuant to 42 U.S.C.

52284 (a). 8.9., Apen v. State eoard of
544, 463, 89 S.Ct. 817, 830, 22 L.Ed. 2d 1 (1969).

action is subject to statutory provisions

e-judge court be convened, a three-judge court
ismiss Plaintiffs' First Claim for Relief as

ns of Plai-ntiffsI Fifth and Seventh Claims for
55 of the Voting Rights Act for stating a claim
al or frivolous. The Supreme Court has clearly
ree-judge court need not he convened even though

provisions would othenvise require a three-
Bailey v. Pattersg, 369 U.S. 31, 82 S.Ct. S4g,

). See also Goosby v. Osser, 4Ol U.S, St2, 519,

2d 36 (1973). The same principle should

on 55 of the Voting Rights Act. In either
of the three-judge court provision is not

a single judge to dismiss certain actions:



"fn d,raf
that if
differ vr

state
state
less a c
the disa
ment is
can be a
enforcin
brought
the same
for disr
A1len v.

that a state enac

not convene a three

States v. Saint Lan

1002, 99 S.Ct. 610,

509 F.Supp. 500 (S,

s2284

court

-8-

ing S5, Congress apparentl_y concluded
he governing authorj-ties of a State
th the Attorney General of the United

States cerning the purpose or effect of a
change i
to have
di strict

voting procedures, it is inappropriate
hat difference resolved hy a singlejudge. The clash betr.reen federal and
r and the potential disruption to
rnment are apparent. There is no

ash and potential for disruption rohen
reement concerns whether a state enact-
ubject to 55. The result of both suitsinjunction prohibiting the state from
its election laws. Although a suity the individual citizens may not involve

federal-state confrontation, the potential
tion of state election procedurel remains.',

,

The policy agai t allowing single district judges to determine

t, practicer or procedure is subject to 55

preclearance requir nts, because of the potential disruption of

sinqle judge

because mooted,

state electj-on p dures n is not frustrated rvhen a

rules on claims tha

clearly governed by

allegations necessa

of jurisdiction. IV

have ruled that a s

are i-nsubstantial or frivolous
prior controlling decisions r or def ic.i-ent in

to the statement of a claim and establishment

rous lor^rer courts faced with this question

nsle judge may decide such questions and need

judge court under sucl: circumstances. United

Parish Schoo1 Board, 601 F.2d 859 (5th Cir.
1979); Broussard v. Perez, 572 t,2d 1113 (5ttr Cir.), cert. denied

sub nom. P1 uemrne Parish School Board v. Broussard, 439 U.S.

58 L,Ed. 2d 677 (1978); Mi11er v. Daniets,

t981); Eccles v. Gargj-ulo | 497 F,Supp. ALg

(r.P.N.Y. 1980); B v. Dinkins | 478 F.Supp. ?49 (S.O.N.Y. L9791 i

Beatty v. Esposito,

422 F.Supp. 416 (N..

E.zd 470 (2d Cir. I
claim) .

Support for thi

439 F.Supp. 830 (r:.D.N.Y. L977) i tr{ebber v. t,trhite,

also Gangemi v. Sclafani, 506

74) (affirming single judge's dismissal of 55

(b) (3) . (42 u

contention is also found directly in 2g U.S.C.

.C. S1973c specifj-caIIy places its three-judge

er the provisions of 28 U.S.C. 52284.) That

-5

tt

L976) i See

requirement



section, as amended

Proceedings except

rules of civil pro

The only actions w

single judge to tak

reference, hearing

or permanent injunc

and entering jud

Dismissal of plaint

requested submissio

here has already

and Seventh Claims

the Voting Rights

tions supporting a

not constitute a j
constitutional ame

subject to the prec

Such a dismissal ce

which a single judg

take. Defendants t
discussed, that the

convenj-ng a three-j

On the basi-s of
Defendants respectf

by the filing of t
rhis .cr," 7/

n

o

t
5

-9-

authorizes the single judge to ,'conduct all
he trial ,and enter all orde::s permitted by the
ure except as provided in this subsection.,,

ch that subsection specifically forbids a

are appointment of a master, ordering a

nd determining an application for a preliminary
ion or a motion to vacate such an injunction,
t on the merits. 28 U.S.C. 52284 (b) (3) .

ffsr First Claim for Relief, because the

of the constitutional amendments in question

made by the stater or of plaintiffsf Fifth
r Re1ief, to the extent they rely on 55 of

, because of the complete absence of al1ega-

action as to those claims for Relief, does

t on the merits - whether or not the
nts or apportionment plans at issue are

earance requirements of 42 tr.S.C. gl973c,

tainly does not constitute any other action
is prohibited by 28 U.S.C. S2284 (b) (3) to

us vigorously contend, for the reasons

Court can di-smiss plaintiffs' 55 claims nithout
e court.

coNcLUsro}:r

the the

sought

Dismiss.

1y

y of October, 1981.

RUFUS L. EDMISTFN
ATTORNRY GENERAL

Post Office Box 629
Raleigh, No::th Carolina 27602
Telephone: (919) 733-3377

l-r

foregoing arguments and authorities,
urge that the Court grant the relief

Suggestion of Mootness and tlotion to

al.J.ace ,- Jr.
Attorney Gene6,l

f Legal Affairs
. Attorney Generalrs Office



-10-

Assistant Attorney General

Tiare Smlley
Assistant Attorney General

ATTORNEYS FOR DEFFNDANTS



f hereby

Memorandum in
Dismiss upon

Memorandum in
addressed to:

This the

certi-f

Suppo

plain

the

/u^

II

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

that I have this day served ilre foregoing
of Suggestion of Mootness and Motj-on to

ffs t attorneys by placing a copy of said
ted States post Office, postage prepald,

J. Levonne Chambers
Les1ie Winner
Chambers , Ferguson, Watt, [,Ia1las ,Adkins & Fuller, p.A.
95I South Independence Boulevard
Charlotte, North Carolina 29202

,fack Greenberg
,James M. Nabrj-tf fII
llapeoleon B. Wi1liams, Jr.
10 Columbus Circle
New York, New York 10019

of October, 198L.



I

f hereby certj-f
Suggestion of Mootn

attorneys by placi
States Post Office,

rhis tn" 1l a

CERTIFICATE OP SERV.TCE

that I have this day served the foregoing
ss and Motion to Dismiss upon plaintiffs t

a copy of said pleading in the trnited
postage prepaid, addressed to:

J. Levonne Chambers
Leslie l{inner
Chambersn Ferguson, Flatt, Wal1as,

Adkins & Fu1ler, p.A.
951 South Independence Boulevard
Clrarlotte, I'Iorth Carolina 29202

Jack Greenberg
James M. Nabrit, III
Napeoleon B. I{i1liams, Jr.
10 Columbus Circle
IIew York, New york 10019

of October, 1981.