Judge prioritizes annexation challenge in Cave City data center case
The lawsuits challenge Cave City’s data center moratorium and the 2024 annexation of the property where the project is proposed.
GLASGOW, Ky. — Attorneys appeared in court Monday for the first time to discuss pending motions in two lawsuits surrounding a proposed data center development in Cave City.
The cases involve the Kentucky Industrial Alliance, Cave City and the Joint City-County Planning Commission and challenge both a city moratorium on data centers and the annexation of the property where the proposed project would be located.
Attorneys agreed to consolidate the two cases into one for organizational purposes, while Judge John T. Alexander said the annexation case should be addressed first.
Attorney Aaron Smith represented Cave City, while attorneys David Broderick and Brandon Murley represented KIA. Thomas Davis represented the Joint City-County Planning Commission.
The first lawsuit challenges Cave City’s year-long moratorium on data center development. KIA is seeking a preliminary injunction that would prevent the city from enforcing the moratorium against its project and allow the development plan to proceed under the zoning regulations in effect when the plan was submitted.
Brennan Crain
Cave City and the Planning Commission have filed motions to dismiss that case, while KIA is seeking the injunction.
The second lawsuit challenges Cave City’s 2024 annexation of the property where the proposed data center would be located. KIA is asking the court to invalidate the annexation.
If the annexation is invalidated, the property could fall outside Cave City’s city limits, potentially affecting the city’s authority over the proposed development.
Murley said the annexation case should be addressed first because a ruling in KIA’s favor could affect the other lawsuit.
“On the annexation challenge, I think it makes sense to go before the moratorium challenge because if they don’t have jurisdiction to even do the moratorium or anything, that would resolve it,” Murley said.
Smith agreed that addressing the annexation issue first made practical sense but maintained that Cave City’s motion to dismiss should remain pending.
Alexander agreed, saying the annexation case was the “smartest place to start” because the issues in the moratorium case could become less significant if the court determines the annexation was not properly completed.
More time needed on annexation claim
Attorneys also told Alexander they would need additional time to research and develop arguments surrounding the annexation.
Murley raised questions about the property’s marketable title, or whether its ownership can be clearly established and transferred without unresolved legal claims or other defects.
“I think there needs to be a little time to take some proof on that,” Murley said.
Smith said he also needed to research whether the alleged problems with the annexation caused material prejudice, or meaningful harm to the parties involved.
“A lot of things are in the background of how this annexation thing came about that might play into that,” Smith said.
The attorneys indicated they would need to conduct discovery before Alexander rules on the annexation issue.
The moratorium case could move more quickly, Smith said, because he views it as primarily a “declaratory judgment action.”
Case is about whether rules were followed
Alexander acknowledged the case involves issues that have generated strong opinions in the community, but said his ruling will not determine whether a data center is good or bad for Cave City.
“Certainly, it involves, from the community standpoint, a lot of hot button issues,” Alexander said. “From my standpoint, this is not a referendum on any of those issues.”
Instead, he said, the court’s job is to determine whether the city and Planning Commission followed the law when handling the annexation and moratorium.
Attorneys agreed to prepare an order consolidating the cases, with the earlier case number continuing to be used.
They are scheduled to return to court Nov. 23 for another motion hour. Alexander said the attorneys could discuss a briefing schedule at that time and determine how the cases will proceed.
“We’re not going to hold any kind of major hearing on that Monday,” he said.
For now, the pending motions to dismiss and KIA’s request for a preliminary injunction are on hold as the case moves forward.
