The neighbors who sued asked a court to freeze the city’s new data center rules while the case was decided. Court records show that never happened. The rules have been in force for 80 days.
COLUMBUS, Ga. — Eight neighbors and a small company sued Columbus in June over the rules that would let a hyperscale data center be built near Upatoi.
They asked the court for two things. One was to throw the rules out. The other was faster: a temporary order to freeze everything while the case was heard. That order would have stopped the city from taking or processing any data center application.
Court records show no such order was ever entered.
The docket for the case lists every step since June. There is no restraining order on it. There is no injunction. Between the day the suit was filed and the day the city answered it, nothing was paused.
So Ordinance 26-034 has been the law in Columbus since June 18. It is the law today. The city says nobody has applied to build a data center yet. Nothing stops anyone from applying tomorrow.
Judge John T. Martin Sr. will hear the case on Sept. 9 at 9:30 a.m., on the 10th floor east of the Columbus Government Center. It is the last of thirteen matters on his calendar that morning.
How Columbus got here
In February, Choose Columbus announced Project Ruby — a $5.18 billion data center planned for 865 acres of wildland in northeast Muscogee County. The announcement named a developer, a build window of 2027 to 2030, 195 permanent jobs and $68.7 million a year in taxes.
Twenty days later, work began on a new city ordinance to allow data centers on land zoned for farming and rural homes, 706report reported at the time.
The council held a first reading and public hearing on June 2. It changed the ordinance after that hearing. The buffer between a data center and its neighbors grew from 200 feet to 500 feet. A ban on diesel generators was added. So was a ban on PFAS in cooling fluids.
The council voted 6-2 to pass it on June 16. Mayor Skip Henderson signed it on June 18. The lawsuit was filed on June 22.
The suit does not argue that data centers are bad. It argues the city broke its own rules getting this one approved.
Who is suing, and who is being sued
The plaintiffs are Keep It Rural LLC and eight landowners who live on or near the site: Stacie Mailey, Debbie Jackson, Charles McClure, Jeremy Gibson, Jordan Kempson, Robert Landi, Wayne Gasser and Debra Jarzomkowski. Their attorney is Jonathan Waters.
Most coverage has described the defendants as the mayor and ten councilors. The docket lists twelve. The City of Columbus is a defendant in its own right, alongside Henderson and councilors Glenn Davis, Gary Allen, Charmaine Crabb, Toyia Tucker, John Anker, Travis Chambers, Simi Barnes, Joanne Cogle, Bruce Huff and Walker Garrett.
Four attorneys have entered for the defense. Jack Schley is lead counsel.
The word the case turns on
On Aug. 7, the city asked the judge to throw out all seven counts. The court’s calendar lists what it will hear as a motion for judgment on the pleadings.
Its filing calls the lawsuit “a premature attempt at blocking a perceived and hypothetical, future data center.” It says the case “was filed purely for delay in an effort by the Plaintiffs to defeat any development of a feared data center in Muscogee County.”
The city’s core argument is that the ordinance does not rezone any land and does not approve any data center. It only sets up a process for an application that has not been made yet.
Lawyers call this ripeness. A court will not decide a fight that has not happened.
If the judge agrees, the case ends. If he does not, it goes forward.
The plaintiffs’ answer to that argument is the timeline above. A specific company, a specific price, a specific number of jobs and a specific tax figure were announced in February. The rules were written after. The question in front of Martin is whether a rule written in the weeks following a named project is a general rule or a particular one.
What Sept. 9 actually decides
It is not a trial.
No money is at stake either. Both sides have asked for a declaratory judgment, which means they want the court to say what the law is. There are no fines and no damages in this case.
What Martin is deciding is whether the case survives. He can throw out all seven counts, or some of them, or none. If any survive, the case moves into discovery, where each side can demand documents and question witnesses under oath.
The name of the motion matters. A motion to dismiss tests the complaint by itself. A motion for judgment on the pleadings comes later, after both sides have filed, and asks the judge to weigh the complaint and the answer together. The city answered on July 23 and moved on Aug. 7. So the 400-page answer is not background to Wednesday. It is part of what Martin is ruling on.
There is a limit on that. If the judge looks at anything beyond those filings, the motion becomes a request for summary judgment instead, and both sides get notice and a chance to respond before he rules. What Martin is allowed to consider is itself a question in the room.
The order that set the date is called a Rule NISI. It was entered Aug. 10. It is scheduling, not a ruling.
What we do not know yet
The city filed its formal answer on July 23. It runs about 400 pages and lists 15 separate defenses. 706report has not read it.
The Aug. 7 motion for judgment on the pleadings has also not been read by this publication. What is known about both comes from other coverage, and one summary of the city’s arguments appears to contain errors.
Two questions matter most, and neither has been answered publicly.
Why was no restraining order entered? The complaint asked for one. The docket does not show one being granted or denied. Whether it was pursued, withdrawn or turned down changes what the last 80 days mean.
What are the 15 defenses? They are the city’s full legal position. So far only a handful have been described anywhere.
706report is seeking these records and will report what they show.
The timeline
| Date | What happened |
|---|---|
| Feb. 12 | Project Ruby announced: $5.18B, 195 jobs, 2027–2030 |
| Mar. 4 | Planning commission work session, now the subject of a separate open meetings complaint to the Georgia attorney general |
| Jun. 2 | First reading and public hearing |
| Jun. 9 | Reading continued; ordinance amended |
| Jun. 16 | Council votes 6-2 to pass |
| Jun. 18 | Henderson signs Ordinance 26-034 |
| Jun. 22 | Lawsuit filed, seven counts |
| Jun. 24 | All twelve defendants served |
| Jul. 23 | City files 400-page answer with 15 defenses, closing the pleadings |
| Aug. 7 | City moves for judgment on the pleadings on all seven counts |
| Aug. 10 | Judge sets the hearing |
| Sep. 9 | Hearing, 9:30 a.m., 10th floor east, Columbus Government Center |
Case: Keep It Rural LLC et al. v. City of Columbus et al., SU2026CV001406, Muscogee County Superior Court. Docket information in this story is taken from the court’s own case record, including Judge Martin’s published civil and domestic calendar for Sept. 9. Ordinance history is drawn from the filed versions of REZN-02-26-0289 and 706report’s earlier reporting. Quotations from the city’s Aug. 7 motion are as reported by the Columbus Ledger-Enquirer.
