DECLARATION OF JULIA A. OLSON in Support of Plaintiffs’ Opposition to 

Defendants’ Motion for Entry of Judgment

JULIA A. OLSON (OR Bar 062230) 

julia@ourchildrenstrust.org

Our Children’s Trust

1216 Lincoln Street

Eugene, OR 97401

Tel: (415) 786-4825 

PHILIP L. GREGORY (pro hac vice)

pgregory@gregorylawgroup.com

Gregory Law Group

1250 Godetia Drive

Redwood City, CA 94062

Tel: (650) 278-2957

ANDREA K. RODGERS (OR Bar 041029)

andrea@ourchildrenstrust.org

Our Children’s Trust

3026 NW Esplanade

Seattle, WA 98117

Tel: (206) 696-2851

Attorneys for Plaintiffs 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF OREGON

KELSEY CASCADIA ROSE JULIANA; 

XIUHTEZCATL TONATIUH M., through his 

Guardian Tamara Roske-Martinez; et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

The UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; et al., 

Defendants.

Case No.: 6:15-cv-01517-AA

DECLARATION OF JULIA A. OLSON in 

Support of Plaintiffs’ Opposition to 

Defendants’ Motion for Entry of Judgment

(ECF No. 516)

Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA Document 518 Filed 09/23/21 Page 1 of 57
DECLARATION OF JULIA A. OLSON in Support of Plaintiffs’ Opposition to 

Defendants’ Motion for Entry of Judgment; 6:15-cv-01517-AA

2

I, Julia A. Olson, hereby declare and if called upon would testify as follows:

1. I am an attorney of record in the above-entitled action. I make this Declaration in support 

of Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Defendants’ Motion for Entry of Judgment (ECF No. 516). I 

have personal knowledge of the facts stated herein, except as to those stated upon 

information and belief, and if called to testify, I would and could testify competently 

thereto.

2. On May 17, 2021, I was on a phone call with counsel for Defendants where I informed 

counsel of our request for non-profit organizational Plaintiff Earth Guardians to be 

dropped voluntarily as a named plaintiff and the parties conferred on this request. I stated 

that, for reasons having nothing to do with the Ninth Circuit opinion or the merits of this 

case, Earth Guardians would no longer remain a named plaintiff and would not join in the 

proposed Second Amended Complaint. On the call, I explained that Earth Guardians had 

been originally founded by the family of Plaintiff Xiuhtezcatl M. and prosecution of this 

action had always focused on and will continue to focus on the 21 individual Plaintiffs’ 

claims, including Xiuhtezcatl as an individual plaintiff. I also stated the belief of counsel

for Plaintiffs that Earth Guardians not proceeding as a named plaintiff did not affect or 

implicate any of the prior judicial decisions or prior legal arguments of the parties, and 

did not affect or implicate any of Plaintiffs’ claims or Defendants’ defenses going 

forward because both sides had always focused on the individual plaintiffs’ claims and 

standing.

3. After the telephonic conferral, Plaintiffs circulated a proposed stipulation to that effect. 

See the May 17, 2021 email of Philip Gregory to Sean Duffy and Frank Singer attached 

as Exhibit 1. 

Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA Document 518 Filed 09/23/21 Page 2 of 57
DECLARATION OF JULIA A. OLSON in Support of Plaintiffs’ Opposition to 

Defendants’ Motion for Entry of Judgment; 6:15-cv-01517-AA

3

4. On May 19, 2021, Sean Duffy responded to the request to drop Earth Guardians in an 

email, which stated, in relevant part: “First, regarding Plaintiffs’ proposed stipulation to 

drop Earth Guardians as a party, we do not agree that Rule 21 (which deals with 

misjoinder) is an appropriate vehicle to dismiss a party in this instance. Procedurally, 

dismissal of Earth Guardians should be accomplished by dismissal of all parties by the 

Court in compliance with the Ninth Circuit mandate. If Plaintiffs move to dismiss Earth 

Guardians, you can state that Defendants’ position is that while the United States agrees 

that dismissal of Earth Guardians is appropriate, procedurally it should be accomplished 

by the dismissal of all parties by the court in compliance with the Ninth Circuit mandate.”

See email string in reverse chronological order attached hereto as Exhibit 2.

5. As Exhibit 2 shows, the parties continued to meet and confer about dropping Earth 

Guardians under Rule 21 over the rest of May, with Defendants consistently responding

by refusing to agree to any stipulation except for a stipulation that dismissed the whole 

case as to all Plaintiffs. 

6. Plaintiffs continually offered to modify the draft stipulation under Rule 21 to address any 

legitimate concerns about dropping Earth Guardians. See the June 3, 2021 email of Philip 

Gregory to Sean Duffy and Frank Singer attached as Exhibit 3. 

7. The emails during May-June requesting a stipulation ceased on June 7, when counsel for 

Defendants wrote: “Defendants cannot join the proposed stipulation. If Plaintiffs seek to 

dismiss (or drop) a party, it should be by motion. And as we indicated below, our position 

is that dismissal should be accomplished by the dismissal of all parties by the Court in 

compliance with the Ninth Circuit mandate.” See the June 7, 2021 email of Sean Duffy 

attached as Exhibit 4.

Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA Document 518 Filed 09/23/21 Page 3 of 57
DECLARATION OF JULIA A. OLSON in Support of Plaintiffs’ Opposition to 

Defendants’ Motion for Entry of Judgment; 6:15-cv-01517-AA

4

8. During oral argument before this Court on June 25, I raised the issue of Earth Guardians 

dropping out as a plaintiff in the case. At that time, Defendants did not object to Earth 

Guardians leaving the case. After oral argument, we filed a supplement to our motion for 

leave to amend the complaint (ECF No. 514), which contained a proposed Second 

Amended Complaint that deleted all references to Earth Guardians as a plaintiff.

Defendants did not respond to or object to this filing.

9. Thus, it came as a complete surprise to counsel for Plaintiffs when, on September 8, 

Defendants wrote they were planning to file “a short motion for entry of judgment against 

Plaintiff Earth Guardians.” Defendants went on to state: “We see the proposed motion as 

an administrative matter that should close the loop on this issue. Please let us know if 

Plaintiffs consent to the motion or if you would like to have a call to discuss this.” See the 

email string in reverse chronological order commencing on September 8, 2021, attached 

as Exhibit 5. 

10. As Exhibit 5 shows, the next day, counsel for Plaintiffs responded by requesting a copy 

of the document Defendants intended to file. See Exhibit 5 (September 9, 2021 email 

from Philip Gregory). As the Exhibit 5 email string shows, Defendants refused to provide 

an advance copy of their brief motion, stating only: “our motion is a short motion seeking 

entry of judgment and dismissal against Earth Guardians under Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b) and 

58 based on its decision not to join Plaintiffs’ efforts to amend the complaint and the 

Ninth Circuit decision.” 

11. The Exhibit 5 email string also shows that, later on September 9, Plaintiffs reiterated their 

request for a copy of the draft motion: “[Y]ou have previously requested copies of our 

proposed filings before taking a position on a motion and we have provided you with 

Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA Document 518 Filed 09/23/21 Page 4 of 57
DECLARATION OF JULIA A. OLSON in Support of Plaintiffs’ Opposition to 

Defendants’ Motion for Entry of Judgment; 6:15-cv-01517-AA

5

those copies. For example, see your email of March 7, 2021 (‘In addition, prior to any 

conferral, we will need to see the proposed amendment to the complaint.’) If the matter is 

‘a short motion’ and you have it ready to file, we see no reason why you cannot provide 

us with a copy in advance for our review and give us the opportunity to discuss any 

concerns in a telephone conference, as required under the local rules. Can you please 

provide us with a draft of the document you intend to file so we can review it as part of 

the conferral process? After you send the draft, we will then be prepared for a phone call 

tomorrow. There is absolutely no urgency to filing this motion today if it is truly ‘an 

administrative matter.’”

12. Rather than provide a copy of the draft motion, Exhibit 5 shows that at 2:42 p.m. Pacific 

on September 9, counsel for Defendants wrote: “If Plaintiff would like to confer on the 

motion, we are opening our conference line up at 5:45 so that we can confer.” 

13. Yet, instead of waiting for the scheduled 5:45 conference call, on September 9, 

Defendants filed their Motion for Entry of Judgment against Earth Guardians at 3:21 p.m. 

Pacific. (ECF No. 516.)

14. Upon receiving the filed motion, counsel for Plaintiffs promptly emailed Defendants: “It 

is 4:20 pm right now. You wrote you were opening your conference line at 5:45, but 

instead you filed your motion minutes after sending your email about the conference line 

before we had a chance to talk internally and respond to your proposed time for a call, 

and without giving us a meaningful chance to confer. In doing so you grossly 

misrepresented our position to the court by saying: ‘Plaintiffs refused telephonic 

conferral unless the United States first provided a copy of the motion.’ We said we could 

have a phone call tomorrow, because we already have a pre-scheduled call this evening 

Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA Document 518 Filed 09/23/21 Page 5 of 57
DECLARATION OF JULIA A. OLSON in Support of Plaintiffs’ Opposition to 

Defendants’ Motion for Entry of Judgment; 6:15-cv-01517-AA

6

and are not available today.” See Exhibit 5. In the same email counsel for Plaintiffs 

requested that Defendants “correct your statement to the court about our position and 

properly complete the conferral process, which might have avoided the need for this 

motion. We would like to confer tomorrow between 10-11:30 a.m. PT.” See Exhibit 5.

15. The next day, September 10, counsel for Defendants recognized they had mistakenly 

opened the conference line at the wrong time: “I ... apologize that I did not include the 

time zone for a proposed discussion yesterday. We meant to open up our line at 5:45 

ET,” a mere three minutes after they sent their email to counsel for Plaintiffs without 

regard for our availability on such short notice. Counsel for Defendants did not await a 

response from counsel to set a mutually agreeable time to confer by telephone on this 

“administrative matter” that had no urgency whatsoever. Basing their position on the 

May 17 proposal by Plaintiffs “to stipulate to drop Earth Guardians from the lawsuit” 

pursuant to Rule 21, counsel for Defendants unilaterally determined a meet and confer 

was not “going to resolve the narrow question raised in the motion regarding the need for 

a judgment against Earth Guardians.” See Exhibit 5. In spite of the obvious inaccuracy of 

their certification, counsel for Defendants refused to withdraw their Motion in order to 

first confer pursuant to the Local Rules and refused to amend their certification.

16. Since the meet and confer process started after Defendants filed the instant motion, 

counsel for Plaintiffs have made several efforts to resolve this matter, requesting 

Defendants stipulate that, pursuant to Rule 21, Earth Guardians be voluntarily dropped as 

a plaintiff at its request. After the filing of the instant motion, the parties conferred by 

telephone for the first time on September 13 (four days after the motion was filed). See

Exhibit 5. 

Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA Document 518 Filed 09/23/21 Page 6 of 57
DECLARATION OF JULIA A. OLSON in Support of Plaintiffs’ Opposition to 

Defendants’ Motion for Entry of Judgment; 6:15-cv-01517-AA

7

17. During that call, Defendants offered to provide a stipulation the next day for removing 

Earth Guardians, which they did not send until September 16 because counsel had to wait 

for “higher ups” to review the stipulation of this “administrative housekeeping matter.” 

See the email string commencing on September 10, 2021, attached as Exhibit 6. 

18. In their draft stipulation, Defendants offered to agree to dismiss Earth Guardians and to 

dismiss the claims brought by Earth Guardians “[p]ursuant to the Ninth Circuit’s March 

5, 2021 mandate, ECF No. 461.” See Exhibit 6. 

19. On September 17, counsel for Plaintiffs responded with a revised stipulation, simply 

dropping Earth Guardians as a plaintiff at its request and dismissing its claims without 

prejudice. See the September 17, 2021 email from Julia Olson to Sean Duffy and Frank 

Singer attached as Exhibit 7. 

20. Despite several proposals on September 20, counsel for Defendants refused to agree to 

Plaintiffs’ revised stipulation: “We ... do not think Plaintiffs’ proposal to withdraw Earth 

Guardians accomplishes the same thing as the stipulation of dismissal that we proposed. 

If Plaintiffs do not agree to dismiss the claims brought by Earth Guardians, we think it 

makes sense for the parties to address the status of Earth Guardians through the pending 

motion for entry of judgment (ECF 516).” See the September 17-20, 2021 email string in 

reverse chronological order attached as Exhibit 8. 

21. As counsel for Plaintiffs, I wish to emphasize that it is not legally or factually accurate to 

say that Earth Guardians is being dismissed because of the Ninth Circuit’s March 5, 2021 

mandate. ECF No. 461. Earth Guardians is voluntarily dropping out as a plaintiff and not 

joining the Second Amended Complaint for reasons having nothing to do with the Ninth 

Circuit mandate. 

Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA Document 518 Filed 09/23/21 Page 7 of 57
DECLARATION OF JULIA A. OLSON in Support of Plaintiffs’ Opposition to 

Defendants’ Motion for Entry of Judgment; 6:15-cv-01517-AA

8

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the 

foregoing is true and correct. Executed on September 23, 2021.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Julia A. Olson____________

Julia A. Olson

Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA Document 518 Filed 09/23/21 Page 8 of 57
Exhibit 1

Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA Document 518 Filed 09/23/21 Page 9 of 57
From: Philip Gregory

Sent: Monday, May 17, 2021 2:21 PM 

To: 'Duffy, Sean C. (ENRD)' <Sean.C.Duffy@usdoj.gov>; Singer, Frank (ENRD) 

<frank.singer@usdoj.gov> 

Cc: Julia Olson <julia@ourchildrenstrust.org>; Andrea Rodgers 

<andrea@ourchildrenstrust.org> 

Subject: Confidential: 2021.05.17.Draft Stipulation EG Drop

Dear Sean,

Thanks for our call today. 

I have attached the draft stip and order dropping Earth Guardians. 

We would appreciate it if you could get back to us promptly on this. 

Thanks, 

Phil

PHILIP L. GREGORY (SBN 95217)

GREGORY LAW GROUP

1250 Godetia Drive

Redwood City, CA 94062-4163

Tel: (650) 278-2957

Email: pgregory@gregorylawgroup.com

Website: gregorylawgroup.com

Exhibit 1 1

Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA Document 518 Filed 09/23/21 Page 10 of 57
STIPULATION TO DROP ORGANIZATIONAL PLAINTIFF; [Proposed] ORDER

6:15-cv-01517-AA

1

JULIA A. OLSON (OR Bar 062230) 

julia@ourchildrenstrust.org

Our Children’s Trust

1216 Lincoln Street

Eugene, OR 97401

Tel: (415) 786-4825 

PHILIP L. GREGORY (pro hac vice)

pgregory@gregorylawgroup.com

Gregory Law Group

1250 Godetia Drive

Redwood City, CA 94062

Tel: (650) 278-2957

ANDREA K. RODGERS (OR Bar 041029)

andrea@ourchildrenstrust.org

Our Children’s Trust

3026 NW Esplanade

Seattle, WA 98117

Tel: (206) 696-2851

JEAN E. WILLIAMS

Acting Assistant Attorney General

SEAN C. DUFFY (NY Bar. No. 4103131)

FRANK J. SINGER (CA Bar. No. 227459)

Trial Attorneys

United States Department of Justice

Environment & Natural Resources Division

Natural Resources Section

150 M Street NE

Washington, DC 20002

Telephone: (202) 305-0445

Facsimile: (202) 305-0506

sean.c.duffy@usdoj.gov

Attorneys for Defendants

Attorneys for Plaintiffs 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF OREGON

KELSEY CASCADIA ROSE JULIANA; 

XIUHTEZCATL TONATIUH M., through his 

Guardian Tamara Roske-Martinez; et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

The UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; et al., 

Defendants.

Case No.: 6:15-cv-01517-AA

JOINT STIPULATION TO DROP 

ORGANIZATIONAL PLAINTIFF

EARTH GUARDIANS; [Proposed] 

ORDER

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 21

Exhibit 1 2

Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA Document 518 Filed 09/23/21 Page 11 of 57
STIPULATION TO DROP ORGANIZATIONAL PLAINTIFF; [Proposed] ORDER

6:15-cv-01517-AA

2

STIPULATION

WHEREAS, Plaintiffs and Defendants (collectively the “Parties”) have conferred and 

agreed upon this Joint Stipulation and [Proposed] Order;

WHEREAS, Plaintiffs requested Defendants stipulate that, pursuant to Federal Rule of 

Civil Procedure 21, plaintiff Earth Guardians, a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization, be dropped as 

a named plaintiff in the present action on the terms set forth herein and Defendants agreed to so 

stipulate;

WHEREAS, the remaining Plaintiffs will continue to prosecute their claims;

WHEREAS, the dropping of Earth Guardians as a named Plaintiff does not affect or 

implicate any of the prior judicial decisions or prior legal arguments of the Parties;

WHEREAS, the dropping of Earth Guardians as a named Plaintiff does not affect or 

implicate any of Plaintiffs’ claims going forward;

WHEREAS, the dropping of Earth Guardians as a named Plaintiff does not affect or 

implicate any of Defendants’ defenses going forward;

WHEREAS, this Court has the authority under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 21 to 

“drop” a party from an action by court order “at any time, on just terms”;

THE PARTIES HEREBY JOINTLY STIPULATE AND AGREE THIS COURT 

SHOULD ISSUE AN ORDER THAT, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 21, Plaintiff 

EARTH GUARDIANS, a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization, is dropped from the present action as 

a named plaintiff effective immediately. 

DATED this 17th day of May, 2021.

Exhibit 1 3

Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA Document 518 Filed 09/23/21 Page 12 of 57
STIPULATION TO DROP ORGANIZATIONAL PLAINTIFF; [Proposed] ORDER

6:15-cv-01517-AA

3

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Julia A. Olson

JULIA A. OLSON 

Attorney for Plaintiffs

/s/ Sean C. Duffy

SEAN C. DUFFY 

Attorney for Defendants 

Exhibit 1 4

Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA Document 518 Filed 09/23/21 Page 13 of 57
STIPULATION TO DROP ORGANIZATIONAL PLAINTIFF; [Proposed] ORDER

6:15-cv-01517-AA

4

Attestation of Filing

I hereby attest, pursuant to District of Oregon, Local Rule 11-1(b), that consent to the 

filing of this document has been obtained from each signatory hereto.

/s/ Julia A. Olson

Julia A. Olson

Attorney for Plaintiffs

Exhibit 1 5

Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA Document 518 Filed 09/23/21 Page 14 of 57
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF OREGON

KELSEY CASCADIA ROSE JULIANA; et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

The UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; et al., 

Defendants.

Case No.: 6:15-cv-01517-AA

[PROPOSED] ORDER

The Court has reviewed the reasons offered in support of the JOINT STIPULATION TO 

DROP ORGANIZATIONAL PLAINTIFF EARTH GUARDIANS and finds there is good cause 

under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 21 to drop Plaintiff EARTH GUARDIANS from this action.

THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 21, Plaintiff EARTH GUARDIANS, a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization, is dropped 

from the present action as a named Plaintiff effective immediately. 

IT ALSO IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the dropping of Plaintiff EARTH 

GUARDIANS as a named Plaintiff does not affect or implicate any of the prior judicial decisions 

or prior legal arguments of the Parties; any of Plaintiffs’ claims going forward; and any of 

Defendants’ defenses going forward.

DATED this _____ day of May, 2021.

__________________________

ANN L. AIKEN

United States District Judge

Exhibit 1 6

Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA Document 518 Filed 09/23/21 Page 15 of 57
Exhibit 2

Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA Document 518 Filed 09/23/21 Page 16 of 57
From: Duffy, Sean C. (ENRD) <Sean.C.Duffy@usdoj.gov> 

Sent: Friday, May 28, 2021 1:37 PM

To: Philip Gregory <pgregory@gregorylawgroup.com>; Julia Olson <julia@ourchildrenstrust.org>; 

Andrea Rodgers <andrea@ourchildrenstrust.org> 

Cc: Singer, Frank (ENRD) <Frank.Singer@usdoj.gov> 

Subject: RE: Juliana v. United States

Phil,

The Ninth Circuit mandate instructed the District Court to dismiss the complaint for lack 

of jurisdiction. It did not invite the Plaintiffs or the Court to dismiss or drop parties in a 

piece-meal fashion. Regardless of which rule Plaintiffs rely upon, additional motions 

practice is inconsistent with the mandate. We are always willing to extend professional 

courtesy, and enter into a stipulation where possible, but in this case, we cannot do so.

As for Rule 21, that rule applies to misjoinder and nonjoinder of parties. The Supreme 

Court and Ninth Circuit cases that you cite – Newman-Green and Galt G/S – both involved 

dismissal of dispensable parties whose joinder defeated diversity jurisdiction, not just 

parties that wished to no longer participate. So the dismissal in those cases fell within Rule 

21’s ambit.

Thank you,

Sean

___________________________________

Sean C. Duffy

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Environment & Natural Resources Division | Natural Resources Section | Trial Attorney

150 M Street NE | Washington, DC 20002 | Ph: (202) 305-0445 | Fax: (202) 305-0506 

From: Philip Gregory <pgregory@gregorylawgroup.com> 

Sent: Wednesday, May 26, 2021 1:53 PM

To: Duffy, Sean C. (ENRD) <Sean.C.Duffy@usdoj.gov>; Julia Olson <julia@ourchildrenstrust.org>; Andrea 

Rodgers <andrea@ourchildrenstrust.org> 

Cc: Singer, Frank (ENRD) <Frank.Singer@usdoj.gov> 

Subject: RE: Juliana v. United States

Sean,

We wanted to ask for more information about your position on dropping Earth 

Guardians as a named plaintiff per Rule 21. While we understand your position as to 

dismissal of the action as that was articulated in your response brief on the motion to 

amend, we do not believe that position should preclude the voluntary dropping of Earth 

Guardians as a party at this stage in the litigation. The government would suffer no legal 

prejudice by dismissing Earth Guardians at this stage. The government conducted 

virtually no discovery as to Earth Guardians; no declarations have been submitted by 

Earth Guardians; the government now has no motions pending as to Earth Guardians; 

and the government has not spent any effort or expense of preparation for the case 

Exhibit 2 1

Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA Document 518 Filed 09/23/21 Page 17 of 57
going forward as to Earth Guardians. By a joint stipulation to drop Earth Guardians, the 

government would not have to spend any resources addressing a motion to drop Earth 

Guardians. Finally, the Court would not have to utilize resources addressing a motion to 

drop Earth Guardians if the only rationale offered by the government for not stipulating 

is that “procedurally it should be accomplished by the dismissal of all parties by the 

court in compliance with the Ninth Circuit mandate.” Such a rationale does not address 

dropping Earth Guardians, but instead goes to a completely different matter as to all of 

the claims by all plaintiffs, an issue that has been and will continue to be handled 

separately.

Our research indicates that Rule 21 allows the court “at any time, on just terms, [to] add 

or drop a party.” The Supreme Court has noted Rule 21 provides courts with the 

authority “to allow a dispensable nondiverse party to be dropped at any time, even after 

judgment has been rendered.” Grupo Dataflux v. Atlas Global Group, L.P., 541 U.S. 

567, 573 (2004) (citing Newman-Green, Inc. v. Alfonzo-Larrain, 490 U.S. 826, 832 

(1989)); Galt G/S v. JSS Scandinavia, 142 F.3d 1150, 1154 (9th Cir. 1998) (“First, Rule 

21 specifically allows for the dismissal of parties at any stage of the action.”). As the 

Tenth Circuit wrote: "Rule 21 allows the court to dismiss parties ‘on such terms as are 

just, thus granting considerable discretion to the district court.’” Lenon v. St. Paul 

Mercury Ins. Co., 136 F.3d 1365, 1371 (10th Cir.1998), quoting Jett v. Phillips and 

Associates, 439 F.2d 987, 989-90 (10th Cir.1971). The Sixth Circuit also utilizes Rule 21 

to dismiss a party. See, e.g., Letherer v. Alger Grp., LLC, 328 F.3d 262, 266 (6th Cir. 

2003) (quoting Philip Carey Mfg. Co. v. Taylor, 286 F.2d 782, 785 (6th Cir. 1961)), 

overruled on other grounds by Blackburn v. Oaktree Capital Mgmt., LLC, 511 F.3d 633, 

636 (6th Cir. 2008) (“Rule 41(a)(1) provides for the voluntary dismissal of an ‘action’ not 

a ‘claim’; the word ‘action’ as used in the Rules denotes the entire controversy, whereas 

‘claim’ refers to what has traditionally been termed ‘cause of action.’ Rule 21 provides 

that ‘Parties may be dropped or added by order of the court on motion’ and we think that 

this rule is the one under which any action to eliminate . . . a party should be 

taken.”); Miller v. Experian Info. Solutions, Inc., No. 3:13-cv-90, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 

85054 (S.D. Ohio June 23, 2014) (construing stipulated dismissals under Rule 

41(a)(1)(A) as motions under Rule 21 based on this logic because “[t]he Sixth Circuit 

has held [in Philip Carey Mfg. Co.] that Rule 21 is the proper vehicle for the dismissal of 

individual parties from the action, and Rule 41, conversely, is appropriate only for 

dismissal of the entire action”).

We continue to believe Rule 21 is the appropriate vehicle to drop Earth Guardians in 

this instance, but please let us know if you are aware of legal authority to the contrary. 

We renew our request that the government stipulate to dropping Earth Guardians out of 

professional courtesy and for the efficiency of the parties and the Court. I think it goes 

without saying, but we will not agree to a dismissal of the whole case, simply by seeking 

the professional courtesy of this stipulation from you. 

Best,

Phil

Exhibit 2 2

Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA Document 518 Filed 09/23/21 Page 18 of 57
PHILIP L. GREGORY (SBN 95217)

GREGORY LAW GROUP

1250 Godetia Drive

Redwood City, CA 94062-4163

Tel: (650) 278-2957

Email: pgregory@gregorylawgroup.com

Website: gregorylawgroup.com

From: Duffy, Sean C. (ENRD) <Sean.C.Duffy@usdoj.gov>

Sent: Wednesday, May 19, 2021 8:11 AM

To: Julia Olson <julia@ourchildrenstrust.org>; Andrea Rodgers <andrea@ourchildrenstrust.org>; Philip 

Gregory <pgregory@gregorylawgroup.com>

Cc: Singer, Frank (ENRD) <Frank.Singer@usdoj.gov>

Subject: RE: Juliana v. United States

Julia,

I wanted to get back to you on the outstanding issues from our call on Monday.

First, regarding Plaintiffs’ proposed stipulation to drop Earth Guardians as a party, we do 

not agree that Rule 21 (which deals with misjoinder) is an appropriate vehicle to dismiss a 

party in this instance. Procedurally, dismissal of Earth Guardians should be accomplished 

by dismissal of all parties by the Court in compliance with the Ninth Circuit mandate. If 

Plaintiffs move to dismiss Earth Guardians, you can state that Defendants’ position is that 

while the United States agrees that dismissal of Earth Guardians is appropriate, 

procedurally it should be accomplished by the dismissal of all parties by the court in 

compliance with the Ninth Circuit mandate.

Second, regarding a proposed extension of Plaintiffs’ July 12 deadline for filing a petition 

for certiorari, it is the government’s view that 150 days is the maximum time for filing a 

petition. In this circumstance, we generally take no position on an extension 

request. Plaintiffs are free to contact the clerk’s office with any questions.

[THIS PORTION OF THE EMAIL HAS BEEN REDACTED AS IT ADDRESSES THE 

SETTLEMENT PROCESS.]

Thank you,

Sean

___________________________________

Sean C. Duffy

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Environment & Natural Resources Division | Natural Resources Section | Trial Attorney

150 M Street NE | Washington, DC 20002 | Ph: (202) 305-0445 | Fax: (202) 305-0506 

Exhibit 2 3

Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA Document 518 Filed 09/23/21 Page 19 of 57
[THE REMAINING EMAILS IN THIS STRING HAVE BEEN REDACTED AS THEY ADDRESS MATTERS 

INVOLVING SETTLEMENT.]

Exhibit 2 4

Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA Document 518 Filed 09/23/21 Page 20 of 57
Exhibit 3

Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA Document 518 Filed 09/23/21 Page 21 of 57
From: Philip Gregory

Sent: Thursday, June 3, 2021 5:46 AM

To: Duffy, Sean C. (ENRD) <Sean.C.Duffy@usdoj.gov>; Julia Olson <julia@ourchildrenstrust.org>; Andrea 

Rodgers <andrea@ourchildrenstrust.org>

Cc: Singer, Frank (ENRD) <Frank.Singer@usdoj.gov>

Subject: RE: Juliana v. United States

Sean,

We understand your position and have added a new whereas clause to make clear the government’s 

position. With this addition to the stipulation, will you please sign on behalf of the government to avoid 

the need for motion practice?

Thanks for your consideration,

Phil

PHILIP L. GREGORY (SBN 95217)

GREGORY LAW GROUP

1250 Godetia Drive

Redwood City, CA 94062-4163

Tel: (650) 278-2957

Email: pgregory@gregorylawgroup.com

Website: gregorylawgroup.com

From: Duffy, Sean C. (ENRD) <Sean.C.Duffy@usdoj.gov>

Sent: Friday, May 28, 2021 1:37 PM

To: Philip Gregory <pgregory@gregorylawgroup.com>; Julia Olson <julia@ourchildrenstrust.org>; 

Andrea Rodgers <andrea@ourchildrenstrust.org>

Cc: Singer, Frank (ENRD) <Frank.Singer@usdoj.gov>

Subject: RE: Juliana v. United States

Phil,

The Ninth Circuit mandate instructed the District Court to dismiss the complaint for lack 

of jurisdiction. It did not invite the Plaintiffs or the Court to dismiss or drop parties in a 

piece-meal fashion. Regardless of which rule Plaintiffs rely upon, additional motions 

practice is inconsistent with the mandate. We are always willing to extend professional 

courtesy, and enter into a stipulation where possible, but in this case, we cannot do so.

As for Rule 21, that rule applies to misjoinder and nonjoinder of parties. The Supreme 

Court and Ninth Circuit cases that you cite – Newman-Green and Galt G/S – both involved 

dismissal of dispensable parties whose joinder defeated diversity jurisdiction, not just 

parties that wished to no longer participate. So the dismissal in those cases fell within Rule 

21’s ambit.

Exhibit 3 1

Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA Document 518 Filed 09/23/21 Page 22 of 57
Thank you,

Sean

___________________________________

Sean C. Duffy

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Environment & Natural Resources Division | Natural Resources Section | Trial Attorney

150 M Street NE | Washington, DC 20002 | Ph: (202) 305-0445 | Fax: (202) 305-0506 

Exhibit 3 2

Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA Document 518 Filed 09/23/21 Page 23 of 57
STIPULATION TO DROP ORGANIZATIONAL PLAINTIFF; [Proposed] ORDER 

6:15-cv-01517-AA

1

JULIA A. OLSON (OR Bar 062230) 

julia@ourchildrenstrust.org 

Our Children’s Trust 

1216 Lincoln Street 

Eugene, OR 97401 

Tel: (415) 786-4825 

PHILIP L. GREGORY (pro hac vice) 

pgregory@gregorylawgroup.com 

Gregory Law Group 

1250 Godetia Drive 

Redwood City, CA 94062 

Tel: (650) 278-2957 

ANDREA K. RODGERS (OR Bar 041029) 

andrea@ourchildrenstrust.org 

Our Children’s Trust 

3026 NW Esplanade 

Seattle, WA 98117 

Tel: (206) 696-2851

JEAN E. WILLIAMS

Acting Assistant Attorney General 

SEAN C. DUFFY (NY Bar. No. 4103131) 

FRANK J. SINGER (CA Bar. No. 227459) 

Trial Attorneys 

United States Department of Justice 

Environment & Natural Resources Division 

Natural Resources Section 

150 M Street NE 

Washington, DC 20002 

Telephone: (202) 305-0445 

Facsimile: (202) 305-0506 

sean.c.duffy@usdoj.gov 

Attorneys for Defendants 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF OREGON

KELSEY CASCADIA ROSE JULIANA; 

XIUHTEZCATL TONATIUH M., through his 

Guardian Tamara Roske-Martinez; et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

The UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; et al., 

Defendants. 

Case No.: 6:15-cv-01517-AA

JOINT STIPULATION TO DROP 

ORGANIZATIONAL PLAINTIFF

EARTH GUARDIANS; [Proposed] 

ORDER

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 21 

Exhibit 3 3

Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA Document 518 Filed 09/23/21 Page 24 of 57
STIPULATION TO DROP ORGANIZATIONAL PLAINTIFF; [Proposed] ORDER

6:15-cv-01517-AA

2

STIPULATION

WHEREAS, Plaintiffs and Defendants (collectively the “Parties”) have conferred and 

agreed upon this Joint Stipulation and [Proposed] Order;

WHEREAS, Plaintiffs requested Defendants stipulate that, pursuant to Federal Rule of 

Civil Procedure 21, plaintiff Earth Guardians, a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization, be dropped as 

a named plaintiff in the present action on the terms set forth herein and Defendants agreed to so 

stipulate;

WHEREAS, the remaining Plaintiffs will continue to prosecute their claims;

WHEREAS, the dropping of Earth Guardians as a named Plaintiff does not affect or 

implicate any of the prior judicial decisions or prior legal arguments of the Parties;

WHEREAS, the dropping of Earth Guardians as a named Plaintiff does not affect or 

implicate any of Plaintiffs’ claims going forward;

WHEREAS, the dropping of Earth Guardians as a named Plaintiff does not affect or 

implicate any of Defendants’ defenses going forward;

WHEREAS, it is the position of Defendants that, while the United States agrees dismissal 

of Earth Guardians is appropriate, procedurally dismissal of Earth Guardians should be 

accomplished by dismissal of all parties by the Court in compliance with the Ninth Circuit 

mandate. Defendants do not waive this position by agreeing to this Stipulation.

WHEREAS, this Court has the authority under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 21 to 

“drop” a party from an action by court order “at any time, on just terms”;

THE PARTIES HEREBY JOINTLY STIPULATE AND AGREE THIS COURT 

SHOULD ISSUE AN ORDER THAT, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 21, Plaintiff 

EARTH GUARDIANS, a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization, is dropped from the present action as 

a named plaintiff effective immediately. 

Exhibit 3 4

Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA Document 518 Filed 09/23/21 Page 25 of 57
STIPULATION TO DROP ORGANIZATIONAL PLAINTIFF; [Proposed] ORDER

6:15-cv-01517-AA

3

DATED this 17th *th day of MayJune, 2021.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Julia A. Olson

JULIA A. OLSON 

Attorney for Plaintiffs

/s/ Sean C. Duffy

SEAN C. DUFFY 

Attorney for Defendants 

Exhibit 3 5

Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA Document 518 Filed 09/23/21 Page 26 of 57
STIPULATION TO DROP ORGANIZATIONAL PLAINTIFF; [Proposed] ORDER

6:15-cv-01517-AA

4

Attestation of Filing

I hereby attest, pursuant to District of Oregon, Local Rule 11-1(b), that consent to the 

filing of this document has been obtained from each signatory hereto.

/s/ Julia A. Olson

Julia A. Olson

Attorney for Plaintiffs

Exhibit 3 6

Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA Document 518 Filed 09/23/21 Page 27 of 57
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF OREGON

KELSEY CASCADIA ROSE JULIANA; et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

The UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; et al., 

Defendants.

Case No.: 6:15-cv-01517-AA

[PROPOSED] ORDER

The Court has reviewed the reasons offered in support of the JOINT STIPULATION TO 

DROP ORGANIZATIONAL PLAINTIFF EARTH GUARDIANS and finds there is good cause 

under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 21 to drop Plaintiff EARTH GUARDIANS from this action.

THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 21, Plaintiff EARTH GUARDIANS, a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization, is dropped 

from the present action as a named Plaintiff effective immediately. 

IT ALSO IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the dropping of Plaintiff EARTH 

GUARDIANS as a named Plaintiff does not affect or implicate any of the prior judicial decisions 

or prior legal arguments of the Parties; any of Plaintiffs’ claims going forward; and any of 

Defendants’ defenses going forward.

DATED this _____ day of MayJune, 2021.

__________________________

ANN L. AIKEN

United States District Judge

Exhibit 3 7

Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA Document 518 Filed 09/23/21 Page 28 of 57
Exhibit 4

Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA Document 518 Filed 09/23/21 Page 29 of 57
From: Duffy, Sean C. (ENRD) <Sean.C.Duffy@usdoj.gov> 

Sent: Monday, June 7, 2021 8:42 AM

To: Philip Gregory <pgregory@gregorylawgroup.com>; Julia Olson <julia@ourchildrenstrust.org>; 

Andrea Rodgers <andrea@ourchildrenstrust.org> 

Cc: Singer, Frank (ENRD) <Frank.Singer@usdoj.gov> 

Subject: RE: Juliana v. United States

Phil,

Defendants cannot join the proposed stipulation. If Plaintiffs seek to dismiss (or drop) a 

party, it should be by motion. And as we indicated below, our position is that dismissal 

should be accomplished by the dismissal of all parties by the Court in compliance with the 

Ninth Circuit mandate. 

Thank you,

Sean

___________________________________

Sean C. Duffy

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Environment & Natural Resources Division | Natural Resources Section | Trial Attorney

150 M Street NE | Washington, DC 20002 | Ph: (202) 305-0445 | Fax: (202) 305-0506 

From: Philip Gregory <pgregory@gregorylawgroup.com> 

Sent: Thursday, June 3, 2021 8:46 AM

To: Duffy, Sean C. (ENRD) <Sean.C.Duffy@usdoj.gov>; Julia Olson <julia@ourchildrenstrust.org>; Andrea 

Rodgers <andrea@ourchildrenstrust.org> 

Cc: Singer, Frank (ENRD) <Frank.Singer@usdoj.gov> 

Subject: RE: Juliana v. United States

Sean,

We understand your position and have added a new whereas clause to make clear the government’s 

position. With this addition to the stipulation, will you please sign on behalf of the government to avoid 

the need for motion practice?

Thanks for your consideration,

Phil

PHILIP L. GREGORY (SBN 95217)

GREGORY LAW GROUP

1250 Godetia Drive 

Redwood City, CA 94062-4163

Tel: (650) 278-2957

Email: pgregory@gregorylawgroup.com 

Website: gregorylawgroup.com 

Exhibit 4 1

Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA Document 518 Filed 09/23/21 Page 30 of 57
Exhibit 5

Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA Document 518 Filed 09/23/21 Page 31 of 57
From: Philip Gregory

Sent: Friday, September 10, 2021 1:21 PM 

To: Duffy, Sean C. (ENRD) <Sean.C.Duffy@usdoj.gov> 

Cc: julia@ourchildrenstrust.org; Andrea Rodgers <andrea@ourchildrenstrust.org>; 

Singer, Frank (ENRD) <Frank.Singer@usdoj.gov> 

Subject: Re: Juliana v. United States (D. Or.), No. 6:15-cv-1517 -- EG Entry of 

Judgment Motion 

Sean,

Let’s do a call on Monday at 10 pacific. That way we are not rushed. 

Have a great weekend, 

Phil

On Sep 10, 2021, at 12:12 PM, Duffy, Sean C. (ENRD) <Sean.C.Duffy@usdoj.gov> 

wrote:

Phil,

We can join a call at 4:30 ET today, but I have a hard stop at 5pm. If a call will take 

more than 30 minutes, we should schedule a call on Monday instead when both 

Frank and I have availability all day except for 2:30-3pm ET.

Thanks,

Sean

___________________________________

<image001.jpg>Sean C. Duffy

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Environment & Natural Resources Division | Natural Resources Section | Trial Attorney

150 M Street NE | Washington, DC 20002 | Ph: (202) 305-0445 | Fax: (202) 305-0506 

From: Philip Gregory <pgregory@gregorylawgroup.com> 

Sent: Friday, September 10, 2021 2:10 PM 

To: Duffy, Sean C. (ENRD) <Sean.C.Duffy@usdoj.gov>; julia@ourchildrenstrust.org; 

Andrea Rodgers <andrea@ourchildrenstrust.org> 

Cc: Singer, Frank (ENRD) <Frank.Singer@usdoj.gov> 

Subject: RE: Juliana v. United States (D. Or.), No. 6:15-cv-1517 -- EG Entry of 

Judgment Motion 

Sean,

Exhibit 5 1

Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA Document 518 Filed 09/23/21 Page 32 of 57
Defendants failed to confer with us as required by the Local Rules. We were prepared 

to engage on a conference call. As a result, Defendants need to correct their filing 

immediately.

Further, we do not understand how a conferral over our proposed stipulation in May to 

resolve this issue counts as conferral on the motion Defendants now bring. Defendants 

never suggested edits to our proposed stipulation. In fact, if you review your prior 

emails, Defendants refused to agree to any stipulation except for a stipulation that 

dismissed the whole case. We are open to revisiting the stipulation we had proposed 

and conferring by phone if this can be resolved without motion practice.

Finally, your email fails to explain why Defendants rushed to file this “administrative” 

motion. Can you please explain the urgency?

To reiterate, we are prepared to confer by phone, we are (and have been) prepared to 

enter into a stipulation concerning the withdrawal of Earth Guardians as a plaintiff, and 

we strongly request that you amend your motion on the issue of meeting and conferring.

We are available for a call after 1:30 PT today. If that time frame does not work, please 

propose times on Monday.

Phil, Julia, and Andrea

From: Duffy, Sean C. (ENRD) <Sean.C.Duffy@usdoj.gov>

Sent: Friday, September 10, 2021 9:58 AM

To: Philip Gregory <pgregory@gregorylawgroup.com>; julia@ourchildrenstrust.org; 

Andrea Rodgers <andrea@ourchildrenstrust.org>

Cc: Singer, Frank (ENRD) <Frank.Singer@usdoj.gov>

Subject: RE: Juliana v. United States (D. Or.), No. 6:15-cv-1517 -- EG Entry of 

Judgment Motion

Phil,

I reviewed our emails and apologize that I did not include the time zone for a 

proposed discussion yesterday. We meant to open up our line at 5:45 ET, shortly 

after you sent your email at 5:20. Frank and I did get on the call at 5:45 and stayed 

on for 15 minutes, but closed the line after no one joined. The parties previously 

conferred on May 17 on Plaintiffs’ proposal to stipulate to drop Earth Guardians 

from the lawsuit. We do not see our motion to require additional conferral, since we 

stated our position then. We did, however, offer to have a further call in my 

September 8 e-mail, if you felt that it was necessary. We understood your 

September 9 response—stating that Plaintiffs would confer telephonically after we 

provided a draft of our motion—as refusing our conferral request of September 8, as 

we had already explained that we cannot share draft motions. I trust that clears up 

any confusion.

Exhibit 5 2

Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA Document 518 Filed 09/23/21 Page 33 of 57
We do not think further conferral is going to resolve the narrow question raised in 

the motion regarding the need for a judgment against Earth Guardians. But please 

let us know if you feel differently.

Thank you,

Sean

___________________________________

<image001.jpg>Sean C. Duffy

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Environment & Natural Resources Division | Natural Resources Section | Trial Attorney

150 M Street NE | Washington, DC 20002 | Ph: (202) 305-0445 | Fax: (202) 305-0506 

From: Philip Gregory <pgregory@gregorylawgroup.com>

Sent: Thursday, September 9, 2021 7:20 PM

To: Duffy, Sean C. (ENRD) <Sean.C.Duffy@usdoj.gov>; julia@ourchildrenstrust.org; 

Andrea Rodgers <andrea@ourchildrenstrust.org>

Cc: Singer, Frank (ENRD) <Frank.Singer@usdoj.gov>

Subject: RE: Juliana v. United States (D. Or.), No. 6:15-cv-1517 -- EG Entry of 

Judgment Motion

Sean,

It is 4:20 pm right now. You wrote you were opening your conference line at 5:45, but 

instead you filed your motion minutes after sending your email about the conference line 

before we had a chance to talk internally and respond to your proposed time for a call, 

and without giving us a meaningful chance to confer. In doing so you grossly 

misrepresented our position to the court by saying: "Plaintiffs refused telephonic 

conferral unless the United States first provided a copy of the motion.” We said we 

could have a phone call tomorrow, because we already have a pre-scheduled call this 

evening and are not available today.

We ask that you correct your statement to the court about our position and properly 

complete the conferral process, which might have avoided the need for this motion.

We would like to confer tomorrow between 10-11:30 a.m. PT.

What is the urgency that necessitated you filing prior to completing conferral?

Phil, Julia, and Andrea

From: Duffy, Sean C. (ENRD) <Sean.C.Duffy@usdoj.gov>

Sent: Thursday, September 9, 2021 2:42 PM

To: Philip Gregory <pgregory@gregorylawgroup.com>; julia@ourchildrenstrust.org; 

Exhibit 5 3

Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA Document 518 Filed 09/23/21 Page 34 of 57
Andrea Rodgers <andrea@ourchildrenstrust.org>

Cc: Singer, Frank (ENRD) <Frank.Singer@usdoj.gov>

Subject: RE: Juliana v. United States (D. Or.), No. 6:15-cv-1517 -- EG Entry of 

Judgment Motion

Phil,

If Plaintiff would like to confer on the motion, we are opening our conference line up 

at 5:45 so that we can confer. The dial in information is:

Dial in: 866-410-9426

Passcode: 2661207

Thank you,

Sean

___________________________________

<image001.jpg>Sean C. Duffy

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Environment & Natural Resources Division | Natural Resources Section | Trial Attorney

150 M Street NE | Washington, DC 20002 | Ph: (202) 305-0445 | Fax: (202) 305-0506 

From: Philip Gregory <pgregory@gregorylawgroup.com>

Sent: Thursday, September 9, 2021 5:21 PM

To: Duffy, Sean C. (ENRD) <Sean.C.Duffy@usdoj.gov>; julia@ourchildrenstrust.org; 

Andrea Rodgers <andrea@ourchildrenstrust.org>

Cc: Singer, Frank (ENRD) <Frank.Singer@usdoj.gov>

Subject: RE: Juliana v. United States (D. Or.), No. 6:15-cv-1517 -- EG Entry of 

Judgment Motion

Sean,

Your response does not comply with the Local Rules, the relevant portions of which I 

have pasted below.

Defendants have not made a good faith effort through personal or telephone 

conferences to resolve the dispute.

We will object to the motion on that basis.

Further, you have previously requested copies of our proposed filings before taking a 

position on a motion and we have provided you with those copies.

For example, see your email of March 7, 2021 (“In addition, prior to any conferral, we 

will need to see the proposed amendment to the complaint.”)

If the matter is “a short motion” and you have it ready to file, we see no reason why you 

cannot provide us with a copy in advance for our review and give us the opportunity to 

discuss any concerns in a telephone conference, as required under the local rules.

Exhibit 5 4

Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA Document 518 Filed 09/23/21 Page 35 of 57
Can you please provide us with a draft of the document you intend to file so we can 

review it as part of the conferral process?

After you send the draft, we will then be prepared for a phone call tomorrow. There is 

absolutely no urgency to filing this motion today if it is truly “an administrative matter.”

Best,

Phil, Julia, and Andrea

LR 7-1 Motions Practice - Generally

(a) Certification Requirements

Except for motions for temporary restraining orders, the first paragraph of every motion 

must certify that:

In compliance with this Rule, the parties made a good faith effort through personal or 

telephone conferences to resolve the dispute and have been unable to do so; or

The opposing party willfully refused to confer; or

The moving party or opposing party is a prisoner not represented by counsel.

From: Duffy, Sean C. (ENRD) <Sean.C.Duffy@usdoj.gov>

Sent: Thursday, September 9, 2021 1:38 PM

To: Philip Gregory <pgregory@gregorylawgroup.com>; julia@ourchildrenstrust.org; 

Andrea Rodgers <andrea@ourchildrenstrust.org>

Cc: Singer, Frank (ENRD) <Frank.Singer@usdoj.gov>

Subject: RE: Juliana v. United States (D. Or.), No. 6:15-cv-1517 -- EG Entry of 

Judgment Motion

Hi Phil,

I hope everyone is coping as best as possible with the wildfires and associated 

conditions. 

While we do not circulate drafts as part of the conferral process, our motion is a 

short motion seeking entry of judgment and dismissal against Earth Guardians 

under Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b) and 58 based on its decision not to join Plaintiffs’ efforts 

to amend the complaint and the Ninth Circuit decision.

We intend to file before close of business PT today, but if you want to discuss 

beforehand I can be available times other than 2:15-2:45 PT today.

Thanks,

Sean

___________________________________

Exhibit 5 5

Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA Document 518 Filed 09/23/21 Page 36 of 57
<image001.jpg>Sean C. Duffy

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Environment & Natural Resources Division | Natural Resources Section | Trial Attorney

150 M Street NE | Washington, DC 20002 | Ph: (202) 305-0445 | Fax: (202) 305-0506 

From: Philip Gregory <pgregory@gregorylawgroup.com>

Sent: Thursday, September 9, 2021 3:58 PM

To: Duffy, Sean C. (ENRD) <Sean.C.Duffy@usdoj.gov>; julia@ourchildrenstrust.org; 

Andrea Rodgers <andrea@ourchildrenstrust.org>

Cc: Singer, Frank (ENRD) <Frank.Singer@usdoj.gov>

Subject: RE: Juliana v. United States (D. Or.), No. 6:15-cv-1517 -- EG Entry of 

Judgment Motion

Thanks for your email, Sean.

We are in various ways dealing with wildfire smoke. Difficult now to be in the West 

during this new climate-fire season.

In response to your question, can you please send us a draft of the document you 

intend to file?

Once we have had an opportunity to review, we may want to confer by phone before 

you file.

Best,

Phil, Julia, and Andrea

From: Duffy, Sean C. (ENRD) <Sean.C.Duffy@usdoj.gov>

Sent: Wednesday, September 8, 2021 11:13 AM

To: julia@ourchildrenstrust.org; Philip Gregory <pgregory@gregorylawgroup.com>; 

Andrea Rodgers <andrea@ourchildrenstrust.org>

Cc: Singer, Frank (ENRD) <Frank.Singer@usdoj.gov>

Subject: Juliana v. United States (D. Or.), No. 6:15-cv-1517 -- EG Entry of Judgment 

Motion

Julia, Phil, and Andrea –

I hope all is well. We plan to bring a short motion for entry of judgment against 

Plaintiff Earth Guardians. As you’ll recall, we previously discussed dropping Earth 

Guardians from the case. Since that time, Plaintiffs filed a revised Second 

Amended Complaint that deletes all references to Earth Guardians. We see the 

proposed motion as an administrative matter that should close the loop on this 

issue. Please let us know if Plaintiffs consent to the motion or if you would like to 

have a call to discuss this.

Thank you,

Sean

Exhibit 5 6

Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA Document 518 Filed 09/23/21 Page 37 of 57
___________________________________

<image001.jpg>Sean C. Duffy

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Environment & Natural Resources Division | Natural Resources Section | Trial Attorney

150 M Street NE | Washington, DC 20002 | Ph: (202) 305-0445 | Fax: (202) 305-0506 

Exhibit 5 7

Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA Document 518 Filed 09/23/21 Page 38 of 57
Exhibit 6

Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA Document 518 Filed 09/23/21 Page 39 of 57
From: Duffy, Sean C. (ENRD) <Sean.C.Duffy@usdoj.gov>

Sent: Thursday, September 16, 2021 1:54 PM

To: Philip Gregory <pgregory@gregorylawgroup.com>

Cc: julia@ourchildrenstrust.org; Andrea Rodgers <andrea@ourchildrenstrust.org>; 

Singer, Frank (ENRD) <Frank.Singer@usdoj.gov>

Subject: RE: Juliana v. United States (D. Or.), No. 6:15-cv-1517 -- EG Entry of 

Judgment Motion

Hi Phil,

I do have an update. Please see the attached proposed stipulation, for Plaintiffs’ 

review.

Thanks,

Sean

___________________________________

Sean C. Duffy

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Environment & Natural Resources Division | Natural Resources Section | Trial Attorney

150 M Street NE | Washington, DC 20002 | Ph: (202) 305-0445 | Fax: (202) 305-0506 

From: Philip Gregory <pgregory@gregorylawgroup.com>

Sent: Thursday, September 16, 2021 4:46 PM

To: Duffy, Sean C. (ENRD) <Sean.C.Duffy@usdoj.gov>

Cc: julia@ourchildrenstrust.org; Andrea Rodgers <andrea@ourchildrenstrust.org>; 

Singer, Frank (ENRD) <Frank.Singer@usdoj.gov>

Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Juliana v. United States (D. Or.), No. 6:15-cv-1517 -- EG 

Entry of Judgment Motion

Sean,

Any update on timing?

Thanks,

Phil

On Sep 15, 2021, at 12:01 PM, Duffy, Sean C. (ENRD) <Sean.C.Duffy@usdoj.gov> 

wrote:

Phil,

Exhibit 6 1

Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA Document 518 Filed 09/23/21 Page 40 of 57
I sent a follow-up email to my supervisor this morning, who is aware of that 

Plaintiffs are waiting for a draft stipulation. I also noted the 14-day response 

deadline for motions. I’ll let you know when I hear back.

Thank you,

Sean

___________________________________

<image001.jpg>Sean C. Duffy

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Environment & Natural Resources Division | Natural Resources Section | Trial Attorney

150 M Street NE | Washington, DC 20002 | Ph: (202) 305-0445 | Fax: (202) 305-0506 

From: Philip Gregory <pgregory@gregorylawgroup.com>

Sent: Wednesday, September 15, 2021 2:35 PM

To: Duffy, Sean C. (ENRD) <Sean.C.Duffy@usdoj.gov>

Cc: julia@ourchildrenstrust.org; Andrea Rodgers <andrea@ourchildrenstrust.org>; 

Singer, Frank (ENRD) <Frank.Singer@usdoj.gov>

Subject: RE: Juliana v. United States (D. Or.), No. 6:15-cv-1517 -- EG Entry of 

Judgment Motion

Sean,

Any update on timing?

Thanks,

Phil

From: Duffy, Sean C. (ENRD) <Sean.C.Duffy@usdoj.gov>

Sent: Tuesday, September 14, 2021 1:12 PM

To: Philip Gregory <pgregory@gregorylawgroup.com>

Cc: julia@ourchildrenstrust.org; Andrea Rodgers <andrea@ourchildrenstrust.org>; 

Singer, Frank (ENRD) <Frank.Singer@usdoj.gov>

Subject: RE: Juliana v. United States (D. Or.), No. 6:15-cv-1517 -- EG Entry of 

Judgment Motion

Phil,

I sent the stipulation over to our management for review and we’re waiting to hear 

back. We just sent an inquiry over today. I’ll let you know as soon as we hear back.

Thank you,

Sean

___________________________________

Exhibit 6 2

Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA Document 518 Filed 09/23/21 Page 41 of 57
<image001.jpg>Sean C. Duffy

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Environment & Natural Resources Division | Natural Resources Section | Trial Attorney

150 M Street NE | Washington, DC 20002 | Ph: (202) 305-0445 | Fax: (202) 305-0506 

From: Philip Gregory <pgregory@gregorylawgroup.com>

Sent: Tuesday, September 14, 2021 2:16 PM

To: Duffy, Sean C. (ENRD) <Sean.C.Duffy@usdoj.gov>

Cc: julia@ourchildrenstrust.org; Andrea Rodgers <andrea@ourchildrenstrust.org>; 

Singer, Frank (ENRD) <Frank.Singer@usdoj.gov>

Subject: RE: Juliana v. United States (D. Or.), No. 6:15-cv-1517 -- EG Entry of 

Judgment Motion

Hi Sean,

Where do we stand on the draft stipulation discussed yesterday?

Thanks,

Phil

From: Philip Gregory

Sent: Friday, September 10, 2021 1:21 PM

To: Duffy, Sean C. (ENRD) <Sean.C.Duffy@usdoj.gov>

Cc: julia@ourchildrenstrust.org; Andrea Rodgers <andrea@ourchildrenstrust.org>; 

Singer, Frank (ENRD) <Frank.Singer@usdoj.gov>

Subject: Re: Juliana v. United States (D. Or.), No. 6:15-cv-1517 -- EG Entry of 

Judgment Motion

Sean,

Let’s do a call on Monday at 10 pacific. That way we are not rushed.

Have a great weekend,

Phil

Exhibit 6 3

Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA Document 518 Filed 09/23/21 Page 42 of 57
STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL - 1 -

TODD KIM

Assistant Attorney General 

SEAN C. DUFFY (NY Bar No. 4103131) 

FRANK J. SINGER (CA Bar No. 227459) 

Trial Attorneys 

United States Department of Justice 

Environment & Natural Resources Division 

Natural Resources Section 

150 M Street NE 

Washington, DC 20002 

Tel: (202) 305-0445; Fax: (202) 305-0506 

sean.c.duffy@usdoj.gov 

Attorneys for Defendants 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF OREGON

EUGENE DIVISION

KELSEY CASCADIA ROSE JULIANA, et al., 

 Plaintiffs, 

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al., 

 Defendants. 

Case No. 6:15-cv-01517-AA 

STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL OF 

PLAINTIFF EARTH GUARDIANS’ CLAIMS

Pursuant to the Ninth Circuit’s March 5, 2021 mandate, ECF No. 461, the Parties 

stipulate to dismiss the claims brought by Plaintiff Earth Guardians. 

Respectfully submitted: September __, 2021 

/s/ DRAFT 

JULIA A. OLSON (OR Bar 062230) 

julia@ourchildrenstrust.org 

TODD KIM

Assistant Attorney General 

United States Department of Justice 

/s/ DRAFT

SEAN C. DUFFY (NY Bar No. 4103131)

Exhibit 6 4

Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA Document 518 Filed 09/23/21 Page 43 of 57
STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL - 2 -

PHILIP L. GREGORY (pro hac vice) 

pgregory@gregorylawgroup.com

ANDREA K. RODGERS (OR Bar 041029)

andrea@ourchildrenstrust.org

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

FRANK J. SINGER (CA Bar No. 227459)

Environment & Natural Resources Division

Natural Resources Section

150 M Street, NE

Washington, DC 20002

Tel: (202) 305-0445 

Fax: (202) 305-0506

E-mail: sean.c.duffy@usdoj.gov 

Attorneys for Defendants

FRANK J. SINGER (CA Bar No. 227459)

Environment & Natural Resources Division

Natural Resources Section

150 M Street, NE

Washington, DC 20002

Tel: (202) 305-0445; Fax: (202) 305-0506

sean.c.duffy@usdoj.gov

Attorneys for Defendants

FRANK J. S

Environmen

Natural Reso

150 M Stree

Washington, 

Tel: (202) 3

Fax: (202) 3

E-mail: sean

Attorneys for 

Exhibit 6 5

Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA Document 518 Filed 09/23/21 Page 44 of 57
Exhibit 7

Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA Document 518 Filed 09/23/21 Page 45 of 57
From: Julia Olson <julia@ourchildrenstrust.org>

Sent: Friday, September 17, 2021 12:27 PM

To: Duffy, Sean C. (ENRD) <Sean.C.Duffy@usdoj.gov>

Cc: Philip Gregory <pgregory@gregorylawgroup.com>; Andrea Rodgers 

<andrea@ourchildrenstrust.org>; Singer, Frank (ENRD) <Frank.Singer@usdoj.gov>

Subject: Re: Juliana v. United States (D. Or.), No. 6:15-cv-1517 -- EG Entry of 

Judgment Motion

Thanks for sending this, Sean.

Here are our proposed edits to the stipulation.

Thanks,

Julia

On Sep 16, 2021, at 1:53 PM, Duffy, Sean C. (ENRD) <Sean.C.Duffy@usdoj.gov> 

wrote:

Hi Phil,

I do have an update. Please see the attached proposed stipulation, for Plaintiffs’ 

review.

Thanks,

Sean

___________________________________

<image001.jpg>Sean C. Duffy

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Environment & Natural Resources Division | Natural Resources Section | Trial Attorney

150 M Street NE | Washington, DC 20002 | Ph: (202) 305-0445 | Fax: (202) 305-0506 

Exhibit 7 1

Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA Document 518 Filed 09/23/21 Page 46 of 57
STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL - 1 -

TODD KIM

Assistant Attorney General 

SEAN C. DUFFY (NY Bar No. 4103131) 

FRANK J. SINGER (CA Bar No. 227459) 

Trial Attorneys 

United States Department of Justice 

Environment & Natural Resources Division 

Natural Resources Section 

150 M Street NE 

Washington, DC 20002 

Tel: (202) 305-0445; Fax: (202) 305-0506 

sean.c.duffy@usdoj.gov 

Attorneys for Defendants 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF OREGON

EUGENE DIVISION

KELSEY CASCADIA ROSE JULIANA, et al., 

 Plaintiffs, 

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al., 

 Defendants. 

Case No. 6:15-cv-01517-AA 

STIPULATION OF WITHDRAWAL OFDISMISSAL OF 

PLAINTIFF EARTH GUARDIANS=’ CLAIMS

The Parties stipulate to the withdrawal of Earth Guardians as a plaintiff from this 

litigation and to the dismissal without prejudice of the claims brought by Plaintiff Earth 

Guardians. 

Pursuant to the Ninth Circuit’s March 5, 2021 mandate, ECF No. 461, the Parties stipulate to 

dismiss the claims brought by Plaintiff Earth Guardians. 

Respectfully submitted: September __, 2021 

Exhibit 7 2

Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA Document 518 Filed 09/23/21 Page 47 of 57
STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL - 2 -

/s/ DRAFT 

JULIA A. OLSON (OR Bar 062230)

julia@ourchildrenstrust.org

PHILIP L. GREGORY (pro hac vice) 

pgregory@gregorylawgroup.com

ANDREA K. RODGERS (OR Bar 041029)

andrea@ourchildrenstrust.org

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

JEAN E. WILLIAMS

Acting Assistant Attorney General

United States Department of Justice

/s/ Sean C. Duffy

SEAN C. DUFFY (NY Bar No. 4103131)

FRANK J. SINGER (CA Bar No. 227459)

Environment & Natural Resources Division

Natural Resources Section

150 M Street, NE

Washington, DC 20002

Tel: (202) 305-0445 

Fax: (202) 305-0506

E-mail: sean.c.duffy@usdoj.gov 

Attorneys for Defendants

TODD KIM

Assistant Attorney General

United States Department of Justice

/s/ DRAFT

SEAN C. DUFFY (NY Bar No. 4103131)

FRANK J. SINGER (CA Bar No. 227459)

Environment & Natural Resources Division

Natural Resources Section

150 M Street, NE

Washington, DC 20002

Tel: (202) 305-0445; Fax: (202) 305-0506

sean.c.duffy@usdoj.gov

Attorneys for Defendants

JEAN E. WI

Acting Assis

United State

/s/ Sean C. D

SEAN C. DU

FRANK J. S

Environmen

Natural Reso

150 M Stree

Washington, 

Tel: (202) 3

Fax: (202) 3

E-mail: sean

Attorneys for 

Exhibit 7 3

Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA Document 518 Filed 09/23/21 Page 48 of 57
Exhibit 8

Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA Document 518 Filed 09/23/21 Page 49 of 57
From: Andrea Rodgers <andrea@ourchildrenstrust.org>

Sent: Monday, September 20, 2021 2:18 PM

To: Duffy, Sean C. (ENRD) <Sean.C.Duffy@usdoj.gov>

Cc: Julia Olson <julia@ourchildrenstrust.org>; Philip Gregory 

<pgregory@gregorylawgroup.com>; Singer, Frank (ENRD) <Frank.Singer@usdoj.gov>

Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: Juliana v. United States (D. Or.), No. 6:15-cv-1517 --

EG Entry of Judgment Motion

Hi SeanWe believe the attached edits to what we sent earlier addresses the concern you initially 

raised. We disagree that we have adequately conferred on this issue because we think 

you are missing an important point. It is not legally or factually accurate to say that Earth 

Guardians is being dismissed because of the mandate. They are voluntarily dropping 

out as plaintiffs and not joining the second amended complaint. When a party voluntarily 

agrees to dismiss their claims, they should be able to do that. We are happy to get on 

the phone and explain in greater details the reasons why Earth Guardians is not joining 

the second amended complaint if that would be helpful. We don’t think the conferral to 

date is adequate if you are not clear on why Earth Guardians is not joining the second 

amended complaint.

Please let us know if the attached edits are acceptable. Thanks,

Andrea Rodgers

Senior Litigation Attorney

she/her/hers

206-696-2851

Our Children's Trust

P.O. Box 5181

Eugene, OR 97405

O: 541-375-0158

#YouthvGov 

DONATE NOW

This message may contain privileged and/or confidential information. It is for the exclusive use of the intended 

recipient(s). Any review, use, disclosure or distribution by persons or entities other than the intended recipient(s) is 

prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply and destroy all copies of the 

original message. Thank you.

On Sep 20, 2021, at 1:59 PM, Duffy, Sean C. (ENRD) <Sean.C.Duffy@usdoj.gov> 

wrote:

Julia,

Exhibit 8 1

Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA Document 518 Filed 09/23/21 Page 50 of 57
Our proposal is to “dismiss the claims brought by Earth Guardians pursuant to the 

Ninth Circuit’s mandate.” That is the formulation we are comfortable with. If you 

can agree with that, we will be happy to file the stipulation. Otherwise, we have 

more than adequately conferred on the United States’ motion and our next step 

should be for Plaintiffs to file their response.

Thank you,

Sean

___________________________________

<image001.jpg>Sean C. Duffy

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Environment & Natural Resources Division | Natural Resources Section | Trial Attorney

150 M Street NE | Washington, DC 20002 | Ph: (202) 305-0445 | Fax: (202) 305-0506 

From: Julia Olson <julia@ourchildrenstrust.org>

Sent: Monday, September 20, 2021 1:47 PM

To: Duffy, Sean C. (ENRD) <Sean.C.Duffy@usdoj.gov>

Cc: Phil Gregory <pgregory@gregorylawgroup.com>; Andrea Rodgers 

<andrea@ourchildrenstrust.org>; Singer, Frank (ENRD) <Frank.Singer@usdoj.gov>

Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: Juliana v. United States (D. Or.), No. 6:15-cv-1517 --

EG Entry of Judgment Motion

Hi Sean,

You write below "If Plaintiffs do not agree to dismiss the claims brought by Earth 

Guardians...” Our proposed draft stipulation says explicitly that it dismisses the claims 

brought by Earth Guardians without prejudice, which is the appropriate form of dismissal at this 

jurisdictional stage of the case. We do agree to dismiss their claims and drop them as a plaintiff. 

It sounds like we are in agreement.

Can you please explain what you see as the problem?

Thanks,

Julia

On Sep 20, 2021, at 9:43 AM, Duffy, Sean C. (ENRD) <Sean.C.Duffy@usdoj.gov> wrote:

Julia,

Exhibit 8 2

Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA Document 518 Filed 09/23/21 Page 51 of 57
Thank you for passing along Plaintiffs’ counter-proposal. We have reviewed it and 

do not think Plaintiffs’ proposal to withdraw Earth Guardians accomplishes the 

same thing as the stipulation of dismissal that we proposed. If Plaintiffs do not 

agree to dismiss the claims brought by Earth Guardians, we think it makes sense 

for the parties to address the status of Earth Guardians through the pending 

motion for entry of judgment (ECF 516).

Thank you,

Sean

___________________________________

<image001.jpg>Sean C. Duffy

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Environment & Natural Resources Division | Natural Resources Section | Trial Attorney

150 M Street NE | Washington, DC 20002 | Ph: (202) 305-0445 | Fax: (202) 305-0506 

From: Julia Olson <julia@ourchildrenstrust.org>

Sent: Friday, September 17, 2021 3:27 PM

To: Duffy, Sean C. (ENRD) <Sean.C.Duffy@usdoj.gov>

Cc: Phil Gregory <pgregory@gregorylawgroup.com>; Andrea Rodgers 

<andrea@ourchildrenstrust.org>; Singer, Frank (ENRD) <Frank.Singer@usdoj.gov>

Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Juliana v. United States (D. Or.), No. 6:15-cv-1517 -- EG 

Entry of Judgment Motion

Thanks for sending this, Sean.

Here are our proposed edits to the stipulation.

Thanks,

Julia

Exhibit 8 3

Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA Document 518 Filed 09/23/21 Page 52 of 57
STIPULATION TO DROP ORGANIZATIONAL PLAINTIFF; [Proposed] ORDER 

6:15-cv-01517-AA

1

JULIA A. OLSON (OR Bar 062230) 

julia@ourchildrenstrust.org 

Our Children’s Trust 

1216 Lincoln Street 

Eugene, OR 97401 

Tel: (415) 786-4825 

PHILIP L. GREGORY (pro hac vice) 

pgregory@gregorylawgroup.com 

Gregory Law Group 

1250 Godetia Drive 

Redwood City, CA 94062 

Tel: (650) 278-2957 

ANDREA K. RODGERS (OR Bar 041029) 

andrea@ourchildrenstrust.org 

Our Children’s Trust 

3026 NW Esplanade 

Seattle, WA 98117 

Tel: (206) 696-2851

JEAN E. WILLIAMS

Acting Assistant Attorney General 

SEAN C. DUFFY (NY Bar. No. 4103131) 

FRANK J. SINGER (CA Bar. No. 227459) 

Trial Attorneys 

United States Department of Justice 

Environment & Natural Resources Division 

Natural Resources Section 

150 M Street NE 

Washington, DC 20002 

Telephone: (202) 305-0445 

Facsimile: (202) 305-0506 

sean.c.duffy@usdoj.gov 

Attorneys for Defendants 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF OREGON

KELSEY CASCADIA ROSE JULIANA; 

XIUHTEZCATL TONATIUH M., through his 

Guardian Tamara Roske-Martinez; et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

The UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; et al., 

Defendants. 

Case No.: 6:15-cv-01517-AA

JOINT STIPULATION TO DROP 

ORGANIZATIONAL PLAINTIFF

EARTH GUARDIANS; [Proposed] 

ORDER

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 21 

Exhibit 8 4

Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA Document 518 Filed 09/23/21 Page 53 of 57
STIPULATION TO DROP ORGANIZATIONAL PLAINTIFF; [Proposed] ORDER

6:15-cv-01517-AA

2

STIPULATION

WHEREAS, Plaintiffs and Defendants (collectively the “Parties”) have conferred and 

agreed upon this Joint Stipulation and [Proposed] Order;

WHEREAS, Defendants moved this Court for entry of judgment against Plaintiff Earth 

Guardians, pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 54(b) and 58 (ECF No. 516);

WHEREAS, Plaintiffs requested Defendants stipulate that, pursuant to Federal Rule of 

Civil Procedure 21, Earth Guardians be dropped as a plaintiff and Defendants so stipulated;

WHEREAS, the dropping of Earth Guardians as a named Plaintiff does not affect or 

implicate (1) any of the prior judicial decisions or prior legal arguments of the Parties, and (2) any 

of the claims of the remaining Plaintiffs;

WHEREAS, the dropping of Earth Guardians as a named Plaintiff does not affect or 

implicate any of Defendants’ defenses going forward;

WHEREAS, this Court has the authority under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 21 to 

“drop” a party from an action by court order “at any time, on just terms”;

THE PARTIES HEREBY STIPULATE AND AGREE THIS COURT SHOULD ISSUE 

AN ORDER THAT, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 21, Plaintiff EARTH 

GUARDIANS is dropped from the present action as a named plaintiff effective immediately and 

the claims brought by Earth Guardians are hereby dismissed without prejudice. 

DATED this *th day of September, 2021.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Julia A. Olson

JULIA A. OLSON 

Attorney for Plaintiffs

/s/ Sean C. Duffy

SEAN C. DUFFY 

Attorney for Defendants 

Exhibit 8 5

Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA Document 518 Filed 09/23/21 Page 54 of 57
STIPULATION TO DROP ORGANIZATIONAL PLAINTIFF; [Proposed] ORDER

6:15-cv-01517-AA

3

Exhibit 8 6

Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA Document 518 Filed 09/23/21 Page 55 of 57
STIPULATION TO DROP ORGANIZATIONAL PLAINTIFF; [Proposed] ORDER

6:15-cv-01517-AA

4

Attestation of Filing

I hereby attest, pursuant to District of Oregon, Local Rule 11-1(b), that consent to the 

filing of this document has been obtained from each signatory hereto.

/s/ Julia A. Olson

Julia A. Olson

Attorney for Plaintiffs

Exhibit 8 7

Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA Document 518 Filed 09/23/21 Page 56 of 57
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF OREGON

KELSEY CASCADIA ROSE JULIANA; et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

The UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; et al., 

Defendants.

Case No.: 6:15-cv-01517-AA

[PROPOSED] ORDER

The Court has reviewed the reasons offered in support of the JOINT STIPULATION TO 

DROP ORGANIZATIONAL PLAINTIFF EARTH GUARDIANS and finds there is good cause 

under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 21 to drop Plaintiff EARTH GUARDIANS from this action.

THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 21, Plaintiff EARTH GUARDIANS, a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization, is dropped 

from the present action as a named Plaintiff effective immediately. 

IT ALSO IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the dropping of Plaintiff EARTH 

GUARDIANS as a named Plaintiff does not affect or implicate any of the prior judicial decisions 

or prior legal arguments of the Parties; any of Plaintiffs’ claims going forward; and any of 

Defendants’ defenses going forward.

DATED this _____ day of September, 2021.

__________________________

ANN L. AIKEN

United States District Judge

Exhibit 8 8

Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA Document 518 Filed 09/23/21 Page 57 of 57