Data center construction nuisance suit can proceed

A suit alleging noise, light and debris from the construction of a Louisa data center campus is a nuisance for neighboring property owners will proceed to trial after Amazon Data Services’ motion to dismiss was denied by the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Virginia.

Amazon sought to dismiss the suit for failure to state a claim, asserting the plaintiffs failed to state a plausible claim of private nuisance and did not allege a particular injury.

Furthermore, Amazon also asserted that Central VA Marine, a boat repair business co-owned by the plaintiff, Austin Newsom, on the adjoining property, did not have standing to bring a private nuisance claim.

U.S. District Judge Jasmine H. Yoon allowed the nuisance claim to proceed while granting a motion to dismiss a claim asking for “temporary injunctive relief.”

“Amazon provides no legal authority suggesting that, under Virginia law, where a plaintiff alleges air pollution, noise pollution, or traffic and highway damage, this court must construe the associated private nuisance claim as a public nuisance claim,” Yoon wrote in Newsom v. Amazon Data Services, Inc. (VLW 026-3-290).

Yoon added that “the alleged nuisance activity interfered with Plaintiffs’ ability to use and enjoy their residence and office space, which Newsom owns, and Central VA Marine occupies.”

Counsel for the parties in this case did not respond to a request for comment by deadline.

Background

Austin Newsom is a homeowner in Louisa and co-owner of Central VA Marine, a limited partnership specializing in boat detailing and repair and catering to clientele including “owners of high-end recreational boats that expect a clean and professional environment.” Central VA Marine’s principal office is on his property.
In March 2025, Amazon began construction on the Northeast Creek Technology Campus, a new data center campus in Louisa constructed on a series of contiguous lots owned by the technology company — including a lot immediately adjacent to Newsom’s.

Per the court’s opinion, construction on the data center campus is expected to be completed around 2031. It is one of two data centers under development in
Louisa County, while plans for a third were withdrawn in July 2025 following public opposition.

Newsom and Central VA Marine claim the data center construction interferes with their use and enjoyment of the property. Specifically, they allege “a barrage of noise and light pollution” that is “extraordinarily loud and at hours prohibited by” Louisa County code, including blue lights that shine “almost continuously” from the property.

The plaintiffs also allege access to their property is limited by increased truck traffic on the roadway, with Central VA Marine customers experiencing “multiple near-accidents” trying to enter or leave the business. Per the opinion, multiple customers have said they will refrain from getting their boats serviced there until after construction is complete.

Newsom further alleged his water began turning brown intermittently following construction and that the air quality was harmed by dust and debris. He stated he now is reluctant to drink the water in his home and that he has experienced mental health harm, while his house has sustained significant devaluing and structural damage due to vibrations from construction equipment.

The plaintiffs filed a complaint in August 2025, alleging a count of private nuisance and a count seeking “temporary injunctive relief.” The suit was later removed to federal court, where in October 2025 Amazon moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim.

Private nuisance

In its motion to dismiss, Amazon claimed the plaintiffs do not allege significant facts to state a plausible private nuisance claim, that the plaintiffs do not allege a particularized injury and that

Central VA Marine “does not have significant interest in the Newsom Property and thus lacks standing.”

Beginning with the standing issue, Yoon wrote that Virginia courts “have repeatedly held that an owner or occupant of land has a right to recover against the operator of a private nuisance,” citing the 1992 Bowers v. Westvaco Corp. decision.

The plaintiffs did not allege in their complaint that Central VA Marine has an ownership interest — only that Central VA Marine occupies the land at issue.

“The parties do not offer, and the court does not find, Virginia authority addressing this precise scenario, where a business entity operates its principal office on a property, that property is owned by a co-partner of that business entity, and the business entity seeks to bring an action for private nuisance challenging interference with that property,” Yoon wrote.

The judge wrote that the court did agree that while possessory interest “can be shown through a plaintiff’s ownership or rental of the property, these are not the only two ways to demonstrate a significant interest.

“Plaintiffs have alleged sufficient facts to raise a plausible inference that Central VA Marine is an occupant of the Newsom

Property,” Yoon wrote. “Accordingly, the court will not dismiss Central VA Marine’s nuisance claim for lack of standing.”

Yoon also held that the plaintiffs alleged enough facts to state a private nuisance claim, defined under Virginia law as “an activity which unreasonably interferes with the use and enjoyment of another’s property.

“The Supreme Court of Virginia has consistently recognized a nuisance claim arising from the operation of a business where its activity, ‘even though lawful, becomes obnoxious to occupants of neighboring dwellings and renders enjoyment of the structures uncomfortable by virtue of … dust, noise, offensive odors, or noxious gases,’”

Yoon wrote, quoting Nat’l Energy Corp v. O’Quinn.

Amazon also argued that the complaint does not necessarily allege causation, namely the water turning brown in Newsom’s home. Yoon disagreed.

“Plaintiffs plainly state that Amazon was responsible for the potential contamination when they allege that ‘Amazon’s ongoing activities, including … Defendants’ contamination of Mr. Newsom’s water supply … have obstructed and interfered with Plaintiffs’ reasonable and comfortable use of their property,’” Yoon wrote.
Yoon also addressed Amazon’s argument for dismissal that the plaintiffs lacked substantial facts regarding the allegations.
She wrote, “Amazon does not cite, nor does the court find, any authority to show that plaintiffs must plead this level of specificity and severity as to each individual form of interference to state a claim for private nuisance.”

Thus, Yoon determined the court will allow the private nuisance claim to proceed.

“Plaintiffs seek to recover for activities interfering with their rights to use and enjoy the Newsom Property,” Yoon wrote. “The mere fact that the alleged harm could have been experienced by others in the community does not automatically foreclose their private nuisance claim.”
Temporary injunctive relief

Amazon argued for the dismissal of the temporary injunctive relief count, claiming that injunctive relief is a remedy rather than an independent cause of action.

“Federal courts have repeatedly held that ‘it is improper to frame a request for an injunction as a separate cause of action,’” Yoon wrote, quoting Bloch v. Exec. Off. Of the President. However, Yoon said, some Virginia courts have allowed the submission as an independent count. Framing this as “a procedural issue that should be governed by federal law,” Yoon dismissed the count as a separate cause of action, while noting that plaintiffs could seek injunctive relief via their private nuisance claim.

The plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary injunction in May, with a hearing on the motion scheduled for Aug. 19.

 Newsom v. Amazon Data Services, Inc.

ISSUE: Did the plaintiffs sufficiently allege a claim of private nuisance against data center construction that can proceed to trial?

ANSWER: Yes (U.S. District Court for the Western District of Virginia)

ATTORNEYS: Christopher Jánszky, Charlottesville, MichieHamlett (plaintiffs); Thomas J. McKee Jr. and Ibnul A. Khan, McLean, Greenberg Traurig (defendant)

• Newsom v. Amazon Data Services, Inc.
• Nat’l Energy Corp v. O’Quinn
• Bloch v. Exec. Off. Of the President