STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING ROYAL DUTCH SHELL PLC'S MOTION TO DISMISS AND JURISDICTIONAL DISCOVERY

WILLIAM ALSUP, District Judge.

WHEREAS, on April 19, 2018, Defendant Royal Dutch Shell plc ("Royal Dutch Shell") filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' first amended complaints for lack of personal jurisdiction, insufficient service of process, and failure to state a claim under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2), 12(b)(5), and 12(b)(6)1;

WHEREAS, on May 25, 2018, "[f] or the reasons stated on the record" at the hearing on May 24, 2018, the Court ordered "jurisdictional discovery" as to Royal Dutch Shell and certain other Defendants, ordered discovery as to "whether Shell Oil Company is Royal Dutch Shell's `general manager' for purposes of sufficiency of process, and ordered supplemental briefing on the relevant motions to dismiss following the conclusion of that discovery;2

WHEREAS, Plaintiffs and Royal Dutch Shell will effectuate a waiver of service of summons in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(d) that will moot Royal Dutch Shell's motion to dismiss for insufficient service of process under Rule 12(b)(5), thereby eliminating any need for discovery in connection with the Rule 12(b)(5) issues;

WHEREAS, to avoid the delay, burden, and expense of jurisdictional discovery and supplemental briefing, Royal Dutch Shell withdraws, for purposes of the above-captioned cases, the portions of its motion to dismiss that gave rise to Plaintiffs' request for jurisdictional discovery, and Plaintiffs agree that, in light of this withdrawal, jurisdictional discovery and supplemental briefing are no longer necessary;

WHEREAS, specifically, Royal Dutch Shell withdraws its arguments against specific personal jurisdiction in Section I.B of its motion to dismiss other than those set forth in Section I.B.3,3 and Royal Dutch Shell also withdraws the Declaration of Linda Szymanski, which was not cited or relied upon in Section I.B.34;

WHEREAS, with the aforementioned withdrawal, there is no remaining portion of Royal Dutch Shell's motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(2) as to which Royal Dutch Shell is relying on any declaration or other factual submission or as to which Plaintiffs are seeking discovery;

WHEREAS, Royal Dutch Shell's remaining argument concerning specific personal jurisdiction in Section I.B.3 is substantially analogous to the specific personal jurisdiction argument advanced by Exxon Mobil Corporation, as to which discovery has not been ordered;

WHEREAS, Plaintiffs and Royal Dutch Shell agree that Royal Dutch Shell's withdrawal of certain of its arguments concerning specific personal jurisdiction in these cases shall have the same effect as if Royal Dutch Shell had not made those arguments in its motion to dismiss, and that this withdrawal is without prejudice to Royal Dutch Shell's right to contest any issue concerning the merits of Plaintiffs' claims or Royal Dutch Shell's right to contest personal jurisdiction in other cases.

NOW THEREFORE, Plaintiffs and Royal Dutch Shell HEREBY STIPULATE AND AGREE, subject to the approval and order of the Court, as follows:

1. For purposes of the above-captioned cases, Royal Dutch Shell withdraws its arguments against specific personal jurisdiction in Section I.B of its motion to dismiss other than those set forth in Section I.B.3, and Royal Dutch Shell also withdraws the Declaration of Linda Szymanski, with the same effect as if those arguments had not been made and that evidence had not been presented.

2. The only arguments Royal Dutch Shell continues to assert concerning specific personal jurisdiction in the above-captioned cases are those in Section I.B.3 (pp. 15-16) of Royal Dutch Shell's Rule 12(b)(2) motion [ECF 222, 17-cv-6011; ECF 186, 17-cv-6012] and the associated portion of Royal Dutch Shell's reply brief, viz., Section I.B (pp. 6-9) [ECF 249, 17-cv-6011; ECF 209, 17-cv-6012].

3. Because of this withdrawal, and because of Plaintiffs' and Royal Dutch Shell's intention to effectuate a waiver of service of process through Rule 4(d) in the above-captioned cases, Plaintiffs agree that their requests for discovery in connection with Royal Dutch Shell's motion to dismiss are moot, and Plaintiffs will not serve jurisdictional discovery on Royal Dutch Shell. Royal Dutch Shell likewise will not serve jurisdictional discovery on Plaintiffs.

4. Because of this stipulation, there is no need for jurisdictional discovery as to Royal Dutch Shell or discovery as to "whether Shell Oil Company is Royal Dutch Shell's `general manager,'" and there is likewise no need for further supplemental briefing on Royal Dutch Shell's motion to dismiss.

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

[PROPOSED] ORDER

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.