Data center construction nuisance suit against Amazon can proceed in Virginia
A U.S. District Court judge denied Amazon Data Services' motion to dismiss a private nuisance lawsuit concerning its data center construction in Louisa, Virginia. Neighboring property owners and a business allege noise, light, debris, water contamination, and traffic issues from the construction. The ruling allows the case to proceed to trial, although a claim for temporary injunctive relief was dismissed as a separate cause of action.
A private nuisance lawsuit against Amazon Data Services, Inc. concerning its Northeast Creek Technology Campus data center construction in Louisa County, Virginia, will proceed to trial. U.S. District Judge Jasmine H. Yoon for the Western District of Virginia denied Amazon's motion to dismiss the case, Newsom v. Amazon Data Services, Inc., allowing claims of private nuisance to move forward.
Plaintiffs Austin Newsom, a homeowner, and Central VA Marine, a boat repair business co-owned by Newsom on an adjoining property, allege significant interference with the use and enjoyment of their property. They claim "a barrage of noise and light pollution," increased truck traffic causing near-accidents, intermittent brown water, and air quality issues from dust and debris. Newsom also reported mental health harm and property devaluing due to construction vibrations.
Amazon had sought dismissal, arguing the plaintiffs failed to state a plausible private nuisance claim, did not allege a particular injury, and that Central VA Marine lacked standing. Judge Yoon, however, ruled that Central VA Marine had sufficient possessory interest to bring a claim, and that the plaintiffs provided enough facts to state a private nuisance claim under Virginia law, defining it as activity that unreasonably interferes with property use and enjoyment. Yoon also upheld the causation claim regarding water contamination.
While the private nuisance claim will proceed, Judge Yoon did dismiss a separate claim for "temporary injunctive relief," asserting that injunctive relief is a remedy, not an independent cause of action. A hearing on the plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction is scheduled for August 19.