Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-02220/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-02220-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 893
Nature of Suit: Environmental Matters
Cause of Action: 33:1365 Environmental Matters

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

MARC D. FINK

Forest Service Employees for Environmental Ethics

4515 Robinson Street

Duluth, Minnesota 55804

tel: (218) 525-3884; fax: (218) 525-3857

marc@marcdfink.com

DONALD B. MOONEY (SBN 153721)

Law Office of Donald B. Mooney

129 C Street, Suite 2

Davis, California 95616

tel: (530) 758-2377; fax: (530) 758-7169

dmooney@dcn.org

Attorneys for Plaintiff

KEVIN V. RYAN (SBN 118321)

United States Attorney

JOANN M. SWANSON (SBN 88143)

Chief, Civil Division

JAMES A. CODA (SBN 1012669 (WI))

Assistant United States Attorney

Environment & Natural Resources Unit

 450 Golden Gate Avenue, Box 36055

 San Francisco, California 94102

 Telephone No: (415) 436-6967

 Facsimile No: (415) 436-6748

 james.coda@usdoj.gov

Attorneys for Defendant

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

FOREST SERVICE EMPLOYEES FOR ) CIVIL NO. 05-02220 SI

ENVIRONMENTAL ETHICS, )

 ) 

Plaintiff, )

 ) STIPULATION AND 

 v. ) [PROPOSED] ORDER

 ) 

UNITED STATES FOREST SERVICE, )

)

Defendant. )

 )

WHEREAS all claims in this case were dismissed except for FSEEE’s ultra vires

challenge to the Forest Service regulations at 36 C.F.R. Part 215.

WHEREAS that challenge has been stayed pending a ruling by the Ninth Circuit in Earth

Case 3:05-cv-02220-SI Document 56 Filed 09/01/2006 Page 1 of 3
 Case 3:05-cv-02220-SI Document 60 Filed 09/11/06 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER; CIVIL NO. 05-02220 SI 2

Island Institute v. Ruthenbeck, Nos. 05-16975 and 17078 (9th Cir.);

WHEREAS the two appeals in that case were decided by the Ninth Circuit on August 10,

2006, Earth Island Institute v. Ruthenbeck, __ F.3d __ , 2006 WL 2291168;

WHEREAS the Ninth Circuit held that 36 C.F.R. § 215.12(f) is invalid; 

WHEREAS the Federal Government does not agree with the decision and it is presently

considering whether to seek further review of the decision, including a petition for rehearing by

the Ninth Circuit and/or a petition for writ of certiorari from United States Supreme Court; and

WHEREAS the parties would like the Court to extend the stay of FSEEE’s ultra vires

challenge to the Forest Service regulations at 36 C.F.R. Part 215 in this case until the Federal

Government has had an opportunity to seek further review of the Ninth Circuit decision; 

NOW THEREFORE, the parties stipulate as follows:

1. The parties agree that the stay on FSEEE’s ultra vires challenge to the Forest Service

regulations at 36 C.F.R. part 215 should be extended until November 8, 2006, the deadline for

the Federal Government to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from the United States Supreme

Court to review the Ninth Circuit’s ruling in Earth Island Institute v. Ruthenbeck, __ F.3d __ ,

2006 WL 2291168. 

2. The parties further agree that if the Federal Government files a petition for rehearing

or for a writ of certiorari the stay should be extended until the Federal Government has

exhausted all appeals; 

3. The parties further agree that they will continue to file a Joint Status Report every 60

days from the date the Court’s Order entered on January 9, 2006, informing the Court of the

current status of the Federal Government’s petition for rehearing or writ or certiorari, if any.

Respectfully submitted, 

Date: 9/1/06 s/Marc D. Fink 

MARC D. FINK

Of Attorneys for Plaintiffs

Case 3:05-cv-02220-SI Document 56 Filed 09/01/2006 Page 2 of 3
 Case 3:05-cv-02220-SI Document 60 Filed 09/11/06 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER; CIVIL NO. 05-02220 SI 3

KEVIN V. RYAN

United States Attorney

Date: 9/1/06 s/James A. Coda 

JAMES A. CODA 

Assistant United States Attorney

Attorneys for Defendant

Defendant’s counsel attests that the wording of this document is acceptable to Plaintiff’s 

counsel.

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Date: 

SUSAN ILLSTON

U.S. District Judge

Case 3:05-cv-02220-SI Document 56 Filed 09/01/2006 Page 3 of 3
 Case 3:05-cv-02220-SI Document 60 Filed 09/11/06 Page 3 of 3