Valara Data Center Lawsuit Dismissed, Why a South Carolina Judge Threw Out the Spartanburg County Challenge

A Spartanburg County judge has dismissed a lawsuit that challenged how Spartanburg County permitted the roughly $2.8 billion Valara data center. The group behind the suit, Concerned Citizens of Spartanburg County, says it will appeal.

The ruling is narrower than many headlines suggest. The judge did not decide whether the project was properly classified, and he did not approve it. Circuit Judge J. Derham Cole Jr. dismissed the case on October 6, 2026, finding that the plaintiffs had not shown the kind of particular harm required to sue, had not first used the county’s administrative appeal process, and were challenging a second permit application the county had not yet decided.

For residents: this was not a class action. There is no settlement, no claim form and no payout. Be cautious of any website claiming otherwise.

Valara Data Center Lawsuit: Quick Facts

Detail	Information
Case	Concerned Citizens of Spartanburg County v. Valara Holdings, LLC, et al.
Case number	2026CP4203416
Court	South Carolina Court of Common Pleas, Spartanburg County
Judge	J. Derham Cole Jr.
Filed	July 6, 2026
Dismissed	October 6, 2026
Plaintiff	Concerned Citizens of Spartanburg County, represented by the Southern Environmental Law Center (SELC)
Defendants	Valara Holdings, LLC and Spartanburg County (the complaint also reportedly names the county administrator)
Project	Valara data center at the former Kohler plant site on South Pine Street; reported at about $2.8 billion
Developer	Valara Holdings, LLC (a NorthMark Strategies company)
Core claim	The county wrongly treated the project as a “Minor” land development instead of a “Major” one, which gets Planning Commission review and public comment
Reasons for dismissal	No showing of special damage (standing); failure to appeal first to the Board of Zoning Appeals; challenge to the second permit was premature
Merits decided?	No
Construction halted?	No. The request to pause construction ended with the dismissal
Appeal	SELC says it plans to appeal; as of October 7, it said it had not yet filed a notice of appeal but expected to within days
Class action / settlement / claim form	None

What Was the Lawsuit About?

The case was not about whether data centers are good or bad. It was about how Spartanburg County classified and reviewed the Valara project under its land-development rules.

Under the county’s ordinance, a Minor Land Development gets staff-level review with no public hearing. A Major Land Development goes to the Planning Commission and involves public notice, public comment and a vote. Concerned Citizens argued that a project this large should have gone through major review, and that the county had effectively divided the project into phases so each could be treated as minor. Those were the plaintiffs’ arguments and have not been decided by any court.

The county’s position, in short, is that classification depends on the wording of its Unified Land Management Ordinance, not simply on a project’s cost or size.

The Permits at the Center of the Case

• First application: Valara applied in 2025 to redevelop part of the old Kohler plant. The county approved it in August 2025.
• Second application: Valara later applied for four new buildings, a power yard and cooling systems. It had not received a final county decision when the case was dismissed.

Why Did the Judge Dismiss the Case?

Judge Cole’s order rested on these grounds, according to local reporting:

1. No special damage shown (standing). The plaintiffs’ concerns about noise, dust, traffic, transparency and health were found too general. Under South Carolina law, neighbors generally must show they are “specially damaged” to challenge a project in court.
2. Failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The judge said the group should have appealed the first permit to the county Board of Zoning Appeals within 10 days before going to court.
3. The second permit challenge was premature. The county had not made a decision on it yet.

The dismissal also ended the plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction to pause construction. A judge had heard that request on September 17.

What Do These Legal Terms Mean?

Standing. Before a court reaches the merits, a plaintiff generally must show a legally sufficient stake in the dispute. South Carolina recognizes statutory standing, constitutional standing and, in some cases, a public-importance exception. In land-use cases, the Local Government Comprehensive Planning Enabling Act (S.C. Code § 6-29-950) lets a person who is “specially damaged” by a violation seek relief, which generally means an injury distinct from the public at large.

Exhaustion of administrative remedies. If the law gives you an administrative way to challenge a government decision, you generally must use it before asking a court to step in.

Ripeness. Courts generally review only final, concrete government decisions. A pending application is not yet something to review.

SELC’s briefs cited the South Carolina Supreme Court’s decision in Preservation Society of Charleston v. SCDHEC (2020), which discusses these standing routes. SELC attorney Catherine Wannamaker said the ruling conflicts with controlling Supreme Court precedent.

Did the Judge Say the County Followed or Broke Its Ordinance?

No, on both counts. The judge did not rule that Valara is a minor development, that the county’s classification was correct, or that the county violated its ordinance. The case ended on threshold grounds, so the main dispute about classification remains unanswered by a court.

What Does SELC Say?

Wannamaker called the ruling unfortunate and said it effectively means that neighbors of the project cannot challenge it in court. She also said residents could not have raised the issue before the Board of Zoning Appeals because they were told at the time that the project was not a data center. Those are SELC’s statements and positions, not court findings. She said SELC “will be taking it up on appeal.”

Does the Dismissal Stop or Approve Construction?

Neither. The ruling does not order construction to stop, and it does not approve Valara’s permits. The project is under construction. SELC’s request for a pause ended when the case was dismissed. An appeal would not automatically stop construction unless a higher court ordered a stay.

Other Legal and Regulatory Disputes Over Valara

The land-use lawsuit is one of several separate proceedings.

• Public Service Commission. In August 2026, the South Carolina Public Service Commission dismissed a separate challenge to Valara’s planned onsite gas-fired power generation. Valara argued it is a private company generating power for its own use, not a regulated utility. SELC says that matter is now before the South Carolina Court of Appeals.
• Air permit. The state Department of Environmental Services issued Valara’s final air permit on September 18, 2026. It is a “synthetic minor” permit with federally enforceable limits of under 10 tons per year for any single hazardous air pollutant and under 25 tons per year combined. On October 1, SELC asked the agency to reopen public comment over a recalculated formaldehyde estimate (10.58 tons per year, up from 9.39 in the draft). The agency says it is reviewing the request and notes that the figure assumes round-the-clock operation. These are disputes about permitting, not findings that Valara violated any law.
• County moratorium. In June, Spartanburg County paused new data-center applications for one year. That does not stop Valara, which was already underway.

What Happens Next?

• Appeal. SELC says it will appeal. An appellate court could affirm, reverse in whole or part, or send the case back. The issues would likely include standing, special damage, administrative exhaustion and ripeness.
• Second permit. If the county decides the pending application, a new challenge may be possible, subject to the applicable appeal deadlines.
• Air permit and PSC matters. These continue separately.

Is There a Settlement or Claim Form?

No. The lawsuit sought a court declaration about the permitting process and an injunction, not money for residents. There is no settlement fund, administrator or claim form. Do not give personal information to any site offering to “file a Valara claim.”

How This Differs From Other South Carolina Development Disputes

AllAboutLawyer has also covered the Scout Motors Blythewood plant lawsuit, in which a couple alleges that construction blasting, dust, noise and runoff damaged their property. That is an individual property-damage case. The Valara case is a procedural challenge to a county permitting classification. They are different types of lawsuits.

Valara Data Center Lawsuit Timeline

Date	Development
2025	Valara files its first development application for the former Kohler site
August 2025	County approves the first application as a minor development
2026	Valara files a second application (four buildings, power yard, cooling); still pending
June 2026	County pauses new data-center applications for one year; Valara not affected
July 6, 2026	Concerned Citizens files suit in Spartanburg County
August 2026	Plaintiffs seek a preliminary injunction; Public Service Commission dismisses a separate power-generation challenge
September 17, 2026	Hearing on the dismissal motions and injunction request
September 18, 2026	State issues Valara’s final air permit
October 1, 2026	SELC asks the state to reopen air-permit public comment
October 6, 2026	Judge Cole dismisses the lawsuit
October 7, 2026	SELC says it will appeal and expects to file within days

Frequently Asked Questions

Why was the Valara data center lawsuit dismissed?

The judge found the plaintiffs did not show the particular harm needed to sue, did not first appeal the first permit to the Board of Zoning Appeals within 10 days, and were challenging a second application the county had not yet decided.

Did the judge rule that Valara is a minor development?

No. The case was dismissed on threshold grounds, and the classification question was not decided.

Did the judge approve Valara’s permits?

No. The ruling dismissed the lawsuit. It was not a general approval of the project.

Who sued?

Concerned Citizens of Spartanburg County, represented by the Southern Environmental Law Center.

Who was sued?

Valara Holdings, LLC and Spartanburg County.

Is construction stopped?

No. Construction continues, and the plaintiffs’ request to pause it ended with the dismissal.

Will there be an appeal?

SELC says yes. It had not filed a notice of appeal as of October 7, but expected to within days.

What does “specially damaged” mean?

A harm particular to the plaintiff, not one shared by the public at large.

What is the Board of Zoning Appeals?

A county body that hears administrative appeals of certain zoning and land-development decisions. The judge said the plaintiffs should have appealed there first.

Is the power-plant dispute part of this lawsuit?

No. It was a separate proceeding before the Public Service Commission, which dismissed it in August. SELC says it is now before the South Carolina Court of Appeals.

Did Valara get a state air permit?

Yes. The state issued a final permit on September 18, 2026. SELC has asked the agency to reopen public comment, and the agency says it is reviewing that request.

Is there a settlement or claim form?

No.

Does the dismissal clear Valara of environmental violations?

No. The case concerned land-development classification and procedure, and the court made no finding on environmental compliance.

Bottom Line

A South Carolina judge dismissed the lawsuit challenging how Spartanburg County permitted the $2.8 billion Valara data center, but the ruling turned on standing, failure to use the county’s administrative appeal, and timing. The court did not decide whether the project should have gone through major review. Construction continues, SELC plans to appeal, and separate disputes over power generation and the air permit are still active. There is no settlement or claim form for residents.

Related Reading on AllAboutLawyer

• Scout Motors Blythewood Plant Lawsuit: What Happened?

Sources

• FOX Carolina, “Judge dismisses lawsuit challenging $2.8B Valara data center in Spartanburg County” (October 6-7, 2026): https://www.foxcarolina.com/2026/10/07/judge-dismisses-lawsuit-challenging-28b-valara-data-center-spartanburg-county/
• FOX Carolina, “Judge dismisses Valara zoning lawsuit; SELC presses formaldehyde dispute” (October 7-8, 2026): https://www.foxcarolina.com/2026/10/08/judge-dismisses-valara-zoning-lawsuit-selc-presses-formaldehyde-dispute/
• FOX Carolina, “SC commission dismisses challenge to Valara data center project” (August 27, 2026): https://www.foxcarolina.com/2026/08/27/sc-public-service-commission-dismisses-challenge-spartanburg-county-data-center-project/
• South Carolina Public Service Commission, Docket No. 2026-158-E: https://dms.psc.sc.gov/Web/Dockets/DocketCard/119739
• Order of Circuit Judge J. Derham Cole Jr., Case No. 2026CP4203416 (October 6, 2026), linked from the FOX Carolina report
• Plaintiffs’ preliminary-injunction filing, Concerned Citizens of Spartanburg County v. Valara Holdings: https://www.scribd.com/document/1076573980/Concerned-Citizens-of-Spartanburg-County-v-Valara-Holdings
• Preservation Society of Charleston v. SCDHEC, 438 S.C. 289, 882 S.E.2d 231 (2020): https://law.justia.com/cases/south-carolina/supreme-court/2020/27949.html
• S.C. Code § 6-29-950 (Local Government Comprehensive Planning Enabling Act of 1994)

This article is for general informational purposes and is not legal advice. The claims of Concerned Citizens of Spartanburg County and the Southern Environmental Law Center are allegations and legal arguments, not findings that Valara Holdings or Spartanburg County violated the law. The October 6, 2026 ruling dismissed the lawsuit on threshold grounds and did not determine that the project complies with every land-use, environmental or permitting requirement. AllAboutLawyer.com is a consumer legal information website, not a law firm. Court orders are the authoritative source. Consult a licensed South Carolina attorney about your situation.