Page 1 – OPINION AND ORDER

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

EUGENE DIVISION

________________________________________

AIKEN, District Judge:

Federal defendants move for entry of judgment against plaintiff Earth 

Guardians under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 54(b) and 58, and to dismiss for 

lack of standing. (Doc. 516). Earth Guardians asks instead that this Court order 

Earth Guardians dropped as a plaintiff pursuant to Rule 21 and that its claims be 

dismissed without prejudice. (Doc. 517).

Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides in pertinent part:

“When . . . multiple parties are involved, the court may direct entry of a final

judgment as to one or more, but fewer than all, claims or parties only if the court

expressly determines that there is no just reason for delay.” A Rule 54(b) certification 

KELSEY CASCADIA ROSE JULIANA, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al.,

Defendants.

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

OPINION AND ORDER

Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA Document 541 Filed 06/01/23 Page 1 of 3
Page 2 – OPINION AND ORDER

should be the exception, not the rule, for it is important to prevent piecemeal appeals 

of a case. Eisen v. Carlisle & Jacquelin, 417 U.S. 156, 170 (1974). Where the parties’

claims are logically related, both from a factual and legal standpoint, “it is not proper 

to direct entry of a separate judgment pursuant to Rule 54(b).” Morrison-Knudsen 

Co. v. Archer, 655 F.2d 962, 965 (9th Cir. 1981). The trial court should not direct 

entry of judgment under Rule 54(b) unless it has made specific findings setting forth 

the reasons for its order. Id. Those findings should include a determination whether, 

upon any review of the judgment entered under the rule, the appellate court will be 

required to address legal or factual issues that are similar to those contained in the 

claims still pending before the trial court. Id. A similarity of legal or factual issues 

will weigh heavily against entry of judgment under the rule, and in such cases a Rule 

54(b) order will be proper only where necessary to avoid a harsh and unjust result, 

documented by further and specific findings. Id. 

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 Grp., 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.”)

Here, the parties agree: Earth Guardians should be dropped from the action as 

a named plaintiff. This Court determines that dropping Earth Guardians as a named 

plaintiff is not proper under Rule 54(b), where Earth Guardians and youth plaintiffs 

Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA Document 541 Filed 06/01/23 Page 2 of 3
Page 3 – OPINION AND ORDER

logically related, both from a factual and legal standpoint. This Court identifies none 

of the factors necessary to enter judgment under Rule 54(b). Rather, the correct 

procedure is under Rule 21. Dropping Earth Guardians will not affect or implicate

any of the prior judicial decisions or prior legal arguments of the parties; any of the 

claims of the remaining plaintiffs; or any of defendants’ defenses going forward. 

Accordingly, federal defendants’ Motion for Entry of Judgment, doc. 516, is 

DENIED. Plaintiff Earth Guardians is dropped (terminated) from this action as a 

named plaintiff effective immediately and the claims brought by Earth Guardians 

are hereby dismissed without prejudice. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated this _____ day of June 2023. 

__________________________ 

Ann Aiken

United States District Judge

1st

/s/Ann Aiken

Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA Document 541 Filed 06/01/23 Page 3 of 3