Injunction request remains pending as Cave City lawsuit hearing is delayed
The court also has not yet ruled on the merits of the lawsuit.
GLASGOW, Ky. — A hearing previously scheduled for July 20 in the lawsuit challenging Cave City’s data center moratorium has been postponed after attorneys for all parties asked the court to instead hold a status conference.
Barren Circuit Judge John T. Alexander signed an order Wednesday removing the case from the court’s July 20 motion docket and scheduling a status conference for Aug. 24 at 9 a.m.
Kentucky Industrial Alliance LLC is suing the City of Cave City, the City Council and the Joint City-County Planning Commission, arguing the city’s one-year moratorium on new data center developments is unlawful and challenging the planning commission’s enforcement of the ban.
Brennan Crain
The lawsuit stems from the city’s decision to adopt a one-year moratorium on new data center developments following public debate over a proposed facility.
The moratorium temporarily halts consideration of new data center projects while city officials review potential regulations.
The case had been set for motion hour, a regularly scheduled court session during which attorneys argue pending motions and a judge may issue rulings. Instead, the parties asked to appear for a status conference, which is typically used to discuss the progress of a case, address procedural matters and set future deadlines.
One of the unresolved issues before the court is Kentucky Industrial Alliance’s request for a preliminary injunction. If granted, the injunction would temporarily prevent Cave City from enforcing the moratorium while the lawsuit proceeds.
That would allow the data center proposal to move through the existing planning and zoning review process until the court reaches a final decision on the lawsuit.
In addition to the pending request for a preliminary injunction, Cave City and the Joint City-County Planning Commission have asked the court to dismiss the lawsuit entirely.
The order postponing the hearing did not explain why the parties requested a status conference in place of the previously scheduled motion hearing. The court also has not yet ruled on the merits of the lawsuit.
