Order Re: Hearing and Determination of Case; Defense's Suggestion of Mootness and Motion to Dismiss; Memo in Support

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

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

SUITE 730 EAST INDEPENDENCE PLAZA

95.I SOUTH INDEPENDENCE BOULEVARD

CHARLOTTE, NORTH CAROLINA 2A2O2
TELEPHONE (704) 375-8461

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

GILOA F, GLAZER
LESLIE J. WINNER

Mr. Napoleon B. Willians IvIr. Norman B. Smith
NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Smith, Patterson, Follin,

Fuqd, Inc. Curtis, James.& Harkavy
t0 Coh:mbus Circle, Suite 2030 704 Southeastern Buildin!
New York, New York 10019 Greensboro, North Carolina 2740L

Ms. Lani Guinier Mr. Steve Suitts
NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Executive Director

Fgnd, Inc. SouEhern Regional Council
806 15th Street, Northwest 75 Marietta Street, NorthwesE
Washington, D. C. 20006 Atlanta, Georgia 30303

Vori i;i .t_ . .;. : i-:t
Re: Gingles v. Edmisten

I am enclosing copies of the following docr:ments:

(1) Order of Judge Dupree of OcEober 7 i

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

(3) Memorandum in Support
and Motion to Dismiss,
attachments.

of Sqggestion of Mootness
along with affidavits and

Norman, the attachments
to forward to you.

JLC: j ch
Enclosures

cover the documents that you wanted me

, It Lnc.gre)ytyo-urs , ,
''./ 

_, 
y, (/**(lo,Ar"7*

{'t' 
')}*vonne 

chambers /



Br\fR$

ts!.u\$.Ilt$$' 
Ii Ifl 

"f 

Nrs'ro *
I
T

THE uNireo srhrrs orsrnrct
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH

RALEIGH DIVISION

b.
RI{LPH GINGLES, €t

VS.

RUT'US EDMISTEN,

Plaintiffs i

on behalf'of th

and registered to

injunctive relief

suant to the appo

Assembly in L9B).

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 defend

it is 'r

\

and of the applic

to the Chief Judg

Circuit, in order

2284 two other j

this court for he

further

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

/

FILED
couir .oCT-- 

Z tget
CAROLINA

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

I.,

Iaintiffs llo. BI:80 3-CrVr-5

oEpE_E
, €t aI.,

fendants

this action are four bLack citizens who sue

elves 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 allege violations of Sections

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

nth and. Fifteenth Amendments to the United States

forced pursuant Lo 42 U.r6.C. SS 1981,and 1983.

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

convened to hear and decide this action;

to the court that plaintiffs have challenged specific

nts as violative of the Voting Rights Act of 1955,

ORDERED that notice of the pendency of this action

tion for injunctive and declaratory relief be given

, United States Court of Appeals fo.r the Fourth

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

ges to sit with the undersigned judge as members of

ring and determination of Lhis action; and it is

ORDERED that a certified copy..of this order be

rable Harrison Winter, Chief Judge of the United'

peals, Baltimore, M

DUPREtr, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

mailed to the H

record.



MLPH G

RUFUS t

Th

First C

be dism

judge c

Voting

that th
isnoj
with re

Th

Secre ta

swo rn t
and aut

act ion .

Re

I

II l, .- 
-: 

.-l

IN THEI UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT '.'i
FoR THE EhsrERN-niirnicr oF NoRTH cARoLTNA- , i' r- ';' '1,:jl

I RALEIGH DIVISION
I 

rhllrurr uLv L urvrr 
-'', ,"'".i 1;._l ';'r::i.1 "', -,r,,

I crvrl N0. 81_803_CIV_5',]:
INGLES, €t. ,[.., )l)Plaintifft , i
v. l)

I i 
succEsrro*o$il MooTNESS

. EDMTSTEN, 
"1 

. 81.,i MoTIoN TO DISMISS

l)Defendantf )

Ie defendants 
F" 

the above-entitled action move that Plaintiffs'
laim, and portions of Plaintiffs' Fifth and Seventh Clai-ms,

Iissed withoutl prejudice and that the convocation of a three-
ourt, for thel purpose of determining matters under B 5 of the

IRights Act ofl 1965, as amended, be declined, for the reason
Ie issues invo[.ved in said claims have become moot and there
Iusticiable cabe or controversy on which this Court can act
Ispect to saidl claims.
Iis Motion is [ased on the attached affidavit of Alex K. Brock,
Iry-Director o[ the State Board of Elections of North Carolina,

o on October 16, 1981, oD the attached memorandum and points
Ihorities, andl on all pleadings, papers and records in this

I

Ispectfully supmitted, this the 7th day of October, 1981.
I

I RUFUS L. EDIUISTEN
I ATTORNEY GENEML
I

I

I Depugy Attorney Gery6e,t
I r'fyt Legal Affairf
I tf /C. Attorney General ,s Of fice
I Yost Office Box 629
I Raleigh, North Caro.lina 21602
I Telephone: (919) 7SS-5577
I

I Tiare Smiley
I Norma Harrell
I Assistant Attorneys General
I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I



t:
I

Il----
| "'' '- 

'': -;

FOR TfE EASTERN DISTRICT OF litORTp eaRolrNa ,

I RALEIGH DMSION 
-t. nta.ri i ;-a);,inrr ,r i .-1i,,.

| 
".,_,..,..,, ._.,..,.., 

.;.l;
I arvrl No. B1-803-erv_s

RALPH GTNGLES, €t. {I., )lrplaintiffs, 
)

I I METIToRANDUM rrv suppoRT oFv. | ) SUGGESTTOT,T OF MOoTNESS

RUFUS EDMrsrEN, €t. 1.r., I ^ND 
MorroN To Drsurss

lrDefendagts. )
I

I

I

I sTATEMENT oF FACTsI-
on september ,u] 1981, plaintiffs filed their action in

the united states o{strict court for the Eastern District of
I

North Carolj-na. ee{era11y, Plaintiffs challenge ttre constitu-t"tionality of North (arolina's apportionment plans for the
IHouse of RepresentaJives and senate of the General Assembly

and for the Second 
{nd 

rourth Congressional Districts and a1leqe
offlcial noncompliarfce with the Voting Rights Act of 1965, s5,
42 u.s.c. 51e73c. I

I

This Memorandurnrlritea in support of Defendants' suggestion
of Mootness ana r,rotlon to Dismiss, addresses itself so1e1y to
Pl-aintif f s' First ar].i* for Rer.ief and to those portions of the
rifth and seventr, c:.laims for Relief rohj-ch are founcled on s5 of

Ithe voting Rights oqa. other relevant facts are set forth in
the Argument betor.r. I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I



n-,

PLATNTITFS ' FIRST
DTSMISSED.

Plaintiffs' Fi

SS3 (3) and s (3) of
two sections prohib

of districts for eI

Representatives of
complain that these

1968, constituted c

which should have

the United States o
Columbj-a for precle

1965 and that they

request the convoca

to " (d) eclare tlrat '

Carolina Constituti
Act of 1965r ds ame

legislation and f
or certifying the

ment which was enac

provisions until

been submitted and

(Complaint, pp. L2-

Failure of the

for approval pursua

understandable, if
law establishing wh

requirements vras s

A11en v. State Boa

Ed. 2d 1 (1969), wa

Affidavit of Alex K.

-2-

ARGUMEIIT I

AIT4 FOR RELIEF IS MOOT AND SHOULD BE

t Claim for Reli.ef relates to Article fI,
he Constitution of North Carolina. These

t the division of counties in the formation
ction of members to the Senate and House of
he North Carolina General Assembly. plaintiffs
provisions, 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 been so submitted. plaintiffs

ion of a three-judge court and pray the Court

ticle It, S3(3) and S5(3) of the North

n are in violation of 55 of the Voting Rights

ed, .and enjoin defendants from enacting any

conducting, supervisirg, participating in,
sults of any election pursuant to an apportion-
ed in accorCance with these constituti_onal
unless these constitutional provisions have

pproved in accordance with 42 U.S.C. 51973;

3, Prayer for Relief 1t3) .

tate to submit these constitutj.onal provisions

t to 55 of the Voting Rights Act was at least
t proper, dt the time of their adoption. Case

t types of State actions triggered preclearance

ty at that time. Even the landmark case of
of Elections, 393 U.S. 544, 89 S.Ct. gI7, 22 L.
not decided until 1969, As set out in the

Brock, Secretary-Director of the State Board

memorandum of Joirn Sanders attached tlrereto,of Elections, and t



the constitutional p

represent changes in
interpreted and applj

of North Carolina ha

divisions of countie

The General Assernbly

legislative district
constitutionally pe

failed to recognize

to division of count

though the language

Without admitti
challenged provision

contention that the

Accordingly, as indi
information regardin

to the Attorney Gene

September 22, 1981,

1967 enactments, amo

By letter of Sept

that further informa

days. " (Brock Affi
1981, Brock provided

all legislative enac

in North Carolina si

By letter of Sept

(Brock Affidavit, At

*The constituti
Drum v. Seawell that
ffird1e
requirements. 249 ?
(1966).

-3-

isions j-n question did not seem to

lections procedure. At least as

d, the relevant constitutional provisions

alrvays forbidden all but the most limited
J-n apportionment of l-egislative districts.

had never diviCed counties in establishing
even to the limited extent vievred as

issible. Consequently, state officials
y change in practice or procedure relating
s in forming legislative districts even

f the constitutional provisions did change.*

error in the failure in L967 to submit the

, the State chooses not to contest plaintifts'

provisions shoulC have been submitted.

ated in the Brock Affidavit, fu1I and,complete

the 1967 enactments has norv been submitted

a1 of the tlnited States. By letter of

rock informed the Attorney General of the

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

ion would be forrvarded "in a matter of a fevr

vit, Attachment II). Furtherr oD September 24,

the Attorney General, by maiL r rdj-th copies of

ts regarding constitutional propositions

1967. (Brock Affidavit, Attachment III).
28, 1981, additional information vras submittecl,

chment IV).

al amendment was triggered by the ruling in
o1d provisions requiring at least one senator
s of population, violated federal constitutional
Supp. 877 (M.D.N,C. 1965) r aff !d, 383 U.S. 831

ce

r



'i:

l

With the submis

Attorney General fo
no remaining 55 que

has repeatedly outl
be raised under 55

by private litigant

Court ruled that pr

817 , 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'IaIhat

Congress expressly

for the District of
determination wheth

purpose or effect I

account of race or

385, 91 S.Ct. 43j-,

such an action 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-

of the constitutional prov.i-sions to the

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

the limits of the questions rvhich may

r-on

his

ti-on

actions brought in 1oca1 district courts
In A1len v. State Board of Elections, the

ate litigants coul<l "seek a declaratory judgment

that a new state e ctment is governed by 55. Further, after
proving that the St te has failed to submit tlre covered enactmelnt

for 55 approval, th private party has standin{-to-obtain an

injunction against rther enforcement, pending the Statets submission

o@

-

Isgg!_t to 55." 393 U.S. 544t 555, 89 S.Ctl-
I (1969). The Court further olrserved that,

Iy question is rvhether the nevr leqislation
approval. " fd., at 555-56, n. 19, 89 S.Ct.,

ction properly instituted under 55 by private
may not consider any question beyond the

1 of the change in voting practices or

foreclosed to such district court is rvhat

served for consideration by the District Court

Iumbia or the Attorney General - - the

a covered change does or does not have the

denying or abridging the right to vote on

1or.r" lertins-:.:_ gattneqq, 400 U,S. 379,

35, 27 L.Ed. 2d 476 (1971) . The inquiry in
"limited to the determination vrhether ra

covered by 55, but has not l:een subjected

aI scrutiny. r,' rd., at 393, 91 s.ct. at 434.

as, reaffirmed in a ruling tlrat the same restriction
ocal court I s inquiry applies even r.rhen the

he plaintj-ff or a party to the action. ,'The

Conqress! determination that only the District
t of Columbia has jurisdiction to consider the



t coverage ' questions

of Warren County, IUi s. r 429 U.S. 642, 646, 97 S.Ct. 833, 835,

issue of whether a

account of race and

sI L.Ed. 2d 106 (t97

Thus, the only q

Voting Rights Act by

by private litigants
voting practices or

action brought by t
of Columbia. The on

Claim for Relief is
constitutional prohi

tive districting for
question has been mo

tional provisions to
Claim for Relief, ba

should consequently

these provisions or

time limit,r no furth
to Plaintiffs except

General's decision n

Gressette, 432 U.S.

506 (1977). Plainti
for a1leging, that t
the Attorney General

Pl-aintiffs have not

since the Attorney G

for or submissions o

the spring primaries

to retain jurisdicti

Defendants request

for Relief and decli

$5 purposes.

-5-

oposed change actually discriminates on

hat other district courts may consitler 55

" United States v. Board of Supervisors

).
estion for consideration under 55 of the

this Court or by any court in a suit brought

is the necessity for submission of specific
rocedures to the Attorney General or via an

State in the District Court for the Di-strict
y question raised by Plaintiffs in their First
he failure of the State to submit the L967

itions against division of counties in legisla-
approval pu."rr"rri to 42 u.s.c. Sl973c. That

ted by the Staters submission of the constitu-
the Attorney General, and pl-aintiffs' First
ed solely on 55 of the gsljns Rights Act,

dismj-ssed. If the Attorney General approves

ails to object to them u,ithin the sixty-day
r challenqe to their enforcement is available
on constitutional grounds. The Attorney

t to object is not reviervable. Morris v.

97, 506-07, 97 s.ct. 24tL, 242L, 53 L.Ed. 2d

fs have not alle9edn nor is there any basis

e State is Iike1y to ignore an objection by

should one be forthcoming. Since the

ht preliminary injunctive relief and

neral's decision, barring repeated requests

additional material, vrould necessarily precede

there i-s no conceivable reason for the Court

of Plaintiffst 55 cIaim. Accordingly,

at the Court dismiss Plaintiffs I First Claim

e the convocation of a three-judge Court for



PI,AINTIFES I TTFTH
DISMTSSED TO THE E

-6-

ARGU}IENT TI

D SEVENTH CLATMS FOR R.}:LIEF SHOIILD BE
ENT THAT THEY AR.E BASED ON 55 OF THE VOTTNG
AS AIUENDED.RIGIITS ACT OF 1965,

Plaintiffs seek

Re1ief on both SS

(Complaint, p. 11,

directed at a1leg

the North Carolina

Relief is aimed at
ment of congressj_on

have not alleged an

failed to submit ei
apportionment plans

Rights Act. Indeed

i-n fact submitted

indicated by the B

Argument It the on

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

District of Columbi

L.Ed. 2d 476 (1971)

544, 89 s.ct. g]-7,

not even alleged fa
indeed could not do

no 55 question is p

Defendants urge thi
Claims for relief i
Rights Act, as amen

of Warren Count ., 429 u.s. 642, 97 s.ct. 933, 51 L.Ed. 2d

106 (7977) i Perkins v. Matther^rs, 400 U.S. 379t 91 S,Ct. 431 , 27

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

t169, 771 . The Fifth Claim for Relief is
inadequacies in the 1981 apportionment of
eneral Assembly. The Seventh Claim for
lIeged inadequacies in the 1981 reapportion-
1 districts in North Carolina. plaintiffs

ere in their Complaint that the State has

her the legislative or conqressional

for approval pursuant to 55 of the Votinq
all three 1981 reapportionment plans r./ere

the Attorney General in a timely mannerr :rS

ck Affidavit. As discussed in the preceding

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

the necessity for preclearance by the Attorney
States or by the District Court for the

. See United States v. Board of Supervisors

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

2 L.Ed. 2d 1 (1969), !.Ihere Plaintiffs have

lure to submit the apportionment plans, and

so since the plans have in fact treen submitted,

operly before the Court. For these-reasons,

Court to dismiss plaintiffs ' Fifth and Seventh

sofar as they are based on 55 of the Voting

ed.



THE DISTRICT COURT
UNDER 55 OF THE VOT
JUDGE COURT.

Plaintiffs have

pursuant to 28 U.S.

ttI) . That section

be convened in acti
congressional or 1

as required by Act

brought under 55 of
are actions for whi

required by Act of

Court has determine

by private litigant

clearance requir

for which three-jud

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

Rellef relying upon

which is insubstant

recognized that a t,!

controlling statuto
judge court. E.g. ,

7 L.Ed. 2d 5L2 (196

93 S.Ct. 854, 35 L.

apply to actions b
instance, the purpo

thwarted by allovrin

NG

-7-

ARGUI\,IENT TTT

AND SHOULD DISMISS
RIGHTS ACT WTTHOUT

PLAINTIEFS I CLATI{S
CONVENI}IG A THREE-

requested that a three-judge court be convened

. 52284, (Comp1aint, p. L2, Prayer for Relief
uires that a district court of three judges

ns challenging the constitutionality of
islative apportionments and in other actj_ons

f .Congress. 28 LI.S.C. S2284 (a) . Actions

the Voting Rights Act of 1965r ds amended,

h three-judge courts have been expressly

ongress. 42 U.S.C. 91973c. The Supreme

and repeatedly affirmed that actions brought

to determine the applicability of the pre-

ts of S5'of the Voting Riqhts Act are actions

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

S2284 (a) . E.g., Lllsn_l1._-:1t4!e Board of

544, 463, 89 S.Ct. 817, 830, 22 L.Ed. 2d 1 (1969).

action is subject to statutory provisions

ee-judge court be convened, a three-judge court
dismiss Plaintiffs I First Claim for Relief as

ns of Plaintiffs I Fifth and Seventh Claims for

55 of the Voting Rights Act for statlng a claim

aI or f rivolous. The .supreme Court has clearly
ree-judge court need not he convened even though

provisions would othenvise require a three-
Bailey v. Patterson, 369 U.S. 31, 82 S.Ct. 549,

). See also Goosby v. Osser, 401 U.S. 512, 518,

2d 36 (1973). The same principle should

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

ed

e

a single judge to dismiss certain actions:



"fn draft
that if t
differ rvi
States
change in
to have t
di strict
state porv
state go
less a cI
the disag
ment is s
can be an
enforcing
brought b
the same
for disr
A1len v.

The policy agai

that a state enactme

preclearance require

state election proc

rules on claims that
clearly governed by

allegations necessar

not convene a three-

Beatty v. Esposito,

422 F. supp . 416 (u.

ng 55, Congress apparently concluded
e governing authorities of a State
h the Attorney General of the United
cerning the purpose or effect of a
voting procedures, it is inappropri_ate
at difference resolved hy a single
udge. The clash betrreen federal and
r and the potential disruption to
rnmenL are apparent. There is no
sh and potential for disruption when
eement concerns rvhether a state enact-
bject to 55. The result of both suits
injunction prohibiting the state from
its electj-on laws. Although a suit
the individual citizens may not involve

ederal-state confrontation, the potential
tion of state election procedures remains""
tate Board of Elections, 393 LI.S. 544,

, S.Ct. ,8
.o7ZT.na.2d, 1(1e6e).

t allowing sj-ngle district judges to determine

t, practicer or procedure is subject to 55

nts, because of the potential- disruption of

ures. is not frustrated rvhen a sinqle judge

are j-nsubstantial or frivolous because mooted,

rior controlling decisions r or def ic-i-ent in
tolthe statement of a claim and establishment

of jurisdictlon. I\'l rous lorver courts faced with this question

have ruled that a si gle judge may decide such guestions and need

udge court under such circumstances. United

States v. Saint La Parish School goalQ, 601- F.2d 859 (5th Cir.
L979); Broussard v. erez,, 572 8,2d, 1113 (5th Cir.) r cert. denied

sub nom. Pla ueml_nes Parish School Board v. Broussard, 439 U.S.

1002, 99 S.Ct. 610,

509 F.Supp. 500 (S,

2d 677 (1978); Miller v. Daniels,

1981); Eccles v, Gargiulot 497 F,Supp.4J-9

(r.o.N.Y. 1980); Bea v. Dinkins , 47I F. Supp . 7 49 (S . D.N.Y. L979) i

F.2d 470 (2d Cir. 19 4) (affirrning single
claim)

(n.D.N.Y. L9771 i l.{ebber v. I.ihite,

also Gangemi v, Sclafani, 506

judgers dismissal of 55

39 F.Supp. 830

Tex. L976) i See

Support for this contention is also found directly in 28 U.S.C.

s2284 (b) (3) (42 u. C. Sl973c specifically places its three-judge

r the provisions of 28 U.S.C. 52284.) Thatcourt requirement un



sectj-on, as amended,

proceedings except

rules of civil pro

The only actions whi

single judge to take

reference, hearing a

or permanent injunct

and entering judgmen

Dismissal of Plainti
requested submission

here has already be

and Seventh Claims f
the Voting Rights Ac

tions supporting a S

not constitute a jud

constitutional amend

subject to the precl

Such a dismissal ce

which a single judge

take. Defendants th

discussed, that the

convening a three-ju

On the basis of
Defendants respectfu

by the filing of the
. 

-J/This the .// a^

-9-

authorizes the single judge to "conduct all
trial and enter all orders permitted by the

ure except as provi-ded in this subsectioD. "

h that subsection specifically forbids a

are appointment of a master, ordering a

determining an application for a preliminary

on or a motion to vacate such an injunction,
on the meri ts. 28 LI.S.C. 52284 (b) (3) .

f s' Fj-rst Claim for Relief , because the

of the constitutional amendments in question

made by the state r ot of PlaintiffsI Fifth
r Relief, to the extent they rely on 55 of

, because of the complete absence of allega-

action as to those claj-ms for Relief , does

nt on the merits - whether or not the

ents or apportionment plans at issue are

arance requirements of 42 U.S.C. 91973c.

inly does not constitute any other action

is prohibited by 28 U.s.c. 52284 (b) (3) to

s vigorously contend, fot the reasons

urt can dj-smiss Plaintiff s' S5 claims r.rithout

ge court.

CONCLUSTO}I

he foregoing arguments and authorities,
ly urge that the Court grant the relief
r Suggestion of Mootness and l.totion to

of October, 1981.

RUFUS L. EDMISTFI$
ATTORNFY GENERAL

Raleigh, No::th Carolina 27602
Telephone: (919) 733-3377

the

sought

Dismiss.



-r0-

Assistant Attorney General

Tiare Smiley
Assistant Attorney General

ATTORNEYS FOR DEFTNDANTS



f hereby

Memorandum in
Dismiss upon

Memorandum in

addressed to:

This the

certify
Suppor

plainti
the

/ u^,

CERTTFICATE OF SERVTCE

that f have this day served the foregoing

of Suggestion of Mootness and Motj-on to
fs t attorneys by placing a copy of said
ted States Post Office, postage prepaid,

J. Levonne Chambers
Leslie Winner
Chambers , Ferguson, Watt, I,Iallas ,Adkins & Fuller, p.A.
951 South Independence Boulevard
Charlotte, North Carolina 28202

Jack Greenberg
James M. Nabrit, fII
Llapeoleon B. Wi1liams, Jr.
10 Columbus Circ1e
New York, New York 10019

of October, 1981,



f hereby certi
Suggestion of
attorneys by placi
States Post Office,

rhis ,n" 1l u

CERTIFTCATE Or SERVIEE

that f have this day served the foregoing
ss and Motion to Dismiss upon plaintiffs'
a copy of said pleading in the thited

postage prepaid, addressed to:
J. Levonne Chambers
Les1ie lrrinner
Chambers , Ferguson , I^Iatt, Wa1las ,Adkins & Fu1ler, p.A.
951 South fndependence BoulevardClrarlotte, North Carolina Zg2O2

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

of October, 1981.