Case: Ack for Whales, Inc. v. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management

Ack for Whales v. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management

COMPLAINT against BUREAU OF OCEAN ENERGY MANAGEMENT, DOUG BURGUM, Matthew Giacona, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR ( Filing fee $ 405 receipt number ADCDC-12177765) filed by WILLIAM VANDERHOOP, AMY DISIBIO, Vallorie Oliver, ACK FOR WHALES, INC., VERONICA BONNET, DANNY PRONK. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Summons BOEM, # 3 Summons Doug Burgum, # 4 Summons Matthew Giacona, # 5 Summons US Attorney DC, # 6 Summons US Attorney General, # 7 Summons US Dep of Interior)(Stavola, Thomas) (Entered: 01/09/2026)

1 Civil Cover Sheet

View on PACER

2 Summons BOEM

View on PACER

3 Summons Doug Burgum

View on PACER

4 Summons Matthew Giacona

View on PACER

5 Summons US Attorney DC

View on PACER

6 Summons US Attorney General

View on PACER

7 Summons US Dep of Interior

View on PACER

LCvR 26.1 CERTIFICATE OF DISCLOSURE of Corporate Affiliations and Financial Interests by ACK FOR WHALES, INC., VERONICA BONNET, AMY DISIBIO, Vallorie Oliver, DANNY PRONK, WILLIAM VANDERHOOP (Stavola, Thomas) (Entered: 01/09/2026)

Case Assigned to Judge Tanya S. Chutkan. (zjm)

MINUTE ORDER: Defendants' 9 Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to the Complaint is GRANTED. Defendants shall answer or otherwise respond to the Complaint by 5/29/2026. Signed by Judge Tanya S. Chutkan on 3/11/2026. (lcjb)

MINUTE ORDER: Before the Court are a complaint and an answer in this case where Plaintiff challenges agency action as violative of the Administrative Procedure Act. Accordingly, the requirements of LCvR 16.3 and Rule 26(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil procedure appear to be inapplicable. It is hereby ORDERED that the parties shall meet and confer and file a joint status report by 7/1/2026. The report shall include a proposed schedule for briefing or further proceedings, as well as a proposed scheduling order. When proposing deadlines, the parties shall avoid proposing a schedule that contains submission of simultaneous dispositive cross-motions. The report shall also explain whether the parties have attempted to settle this matter, as well as the extent to which the parties believe court sponsored alternative dispute resolution might be helpful in resolving this litigation. Signed by Judge Tanya S. Chutkan on 6/1/2026. (lcjb)

MINUTE ORDER: Vineyard Wind's 6 Unopposed Motion to Intervene is GRANTED. As a threshold matter, Vineyard has standing to intervene. The company would no doubt be injured if the court were to grant Plaintiffs the relief they seek and vacate Defendant's approval of Vineyard's construction and operations plan ("COP"), forcing Vineyard to shutter the project. See Crossroads Grassroots Pol'y Strategies v. FEC, 788 F.3d 312, 318 (D.C. Cir. 2015). The question then is whether Vineyard is entitled to intervene as of right under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a). Under that Rule, the court "must grant a motion to intervene" if (1) "the motion is timely," (2) "the prospective intervenor claims a legally protected interest in the action," (3) "the action threatens to impair that interest," and (4) the "existing parties" do not "adequately represent[]" that interest. Amador Cnty. v. Dep't of Interior, 772 F.3d 901, 903 (D.C. Cir. 2014). Vineyard Wind has satisfied all four requirements. First, Vineyard Wind timely moved to intervene less than a month after Plaintiffs sued and more than three months before Defendant answered. Second, Vineyard plainly has an interest in the continued approval of a project in which it has invested $4.5 billion. Third, if the court were to vacate that approval, Vineyard would be forced to stop constructing and operating its wind farm, which would impair its ability to recoup its investment. Fourth, Defendants do not appear to adequately represent Vineyard's interest because after the change in administration, Defendants no longer appear poised to vigorously defend its approval of the wind farm. To the contrary, Defendants have more recently issued stop orders directing Vineyard to halt development. And a party "ordinarily should be allowed to intervene unless it is clear that the [existing] party will provide adequate representation." Crossroads, 788 F.3d at 321 (cleaned up). Accordingly, Vineyard is entitled to intervene as of right. Signed by Judge Tanya S. Chutkan on 6/4/2026. (lcjb)

MINUTE ORDER: Before the court are a Complaint and an Answer. The requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f) and Local Civil Rule 16.3 appear to be inapplicable in this Administrative Procedure Act case. It is hereby ORDERED that the parties shall meet and confer and file a Joint Status Report by 7/17/2026. The Report shall propose a schedule for moving forward in this matter. The parties shall avoid proposing a schedule that includes submission of simultaneous dispositive cross motions. The Report shall also explain whether the parties have attempted to settle this matter, as well as the extent to which the parties believe court-sponsored mediation might be helpful in resolving the parties' dispute. A proposed order shall accompany the proposed schedule. Signed by Judge Tanya S. Chutkan on 6/19/2026. (lcjb)