Federal case file
Imperial Valley Computer Manufacturing v. City of Imperial et al.
The developer frames it as a by-right industrial data center. The City frames it as a much larger infrastructure system involving power, water, CEQA, emergency generation, regional siting, and public-process control.
Follow the case
Case updates
Short updates, explainers, and court-tracker posts will appear here as the case develops.
The filings show that this dispute is not simply about whether a data center should be built in Imperial. The deeper fight is over…
Support the archive
This site collects and organizes public court records, exhibits, and case updates so residents, reporters, and local stakeholders can follow the Imperial Valley data center dispute.
Transparency: this is an editorially organized public case file with source links. Donations support site operations such as document hosting, research, and public access work; they are not presented here as legal fees or court costs.
Case alerts
Sign up for new filings, timeline updates, and important site changes.
Articles
The companion proposed order lays out what the next procedural step could look like if the court grants the request for an Early Neutral Evaluation conference. The proposed…
Read articleA new May 21, 2026 filing asks the federal court to move the case into an Early Neutral Evaluation, discovery, or status conference while the motion to dismiss…
Read articleRead this first
This is where the filings start to get interesting. The dispute is not just “data center yes or no.” It is about who gets to define the project: a routine industrial use, or a much bigger system involving power, water, generators, CEQA review, and public control.
⏱️ Approval clock
The developer says the City missed a 15-day deadline and the site plans became deemed approved. The City says the clock never really started because the application was not formally deemed complete. That one timing question may carry a lot of weight.
View source →⚡ Power
The record points to a proposed 330 MW load, IID involvement, temporary CAISO market supply, battery storage, and emergency generation. In other words, this was never just about plugging in a building.
View source →💧 Water
The emails show real discussion of reclaimed water, Title 22 treatment, pricing, plant costs, pipeline routing, and developer-agreement structure. That does not prove a final deal, but it shows the topic was active and concrete.
View source →⚖️ State court
The February 27, 2026 Superior Court order matters, but it appears procedural rather than a final ruling that ends the CEQA fight. Helpful to one side? Yes. Game over? Not from these filings.
View source →🗺️ Regional strategy
The exhibits mention Data Center #1 in the City of Imperial, #2 in Imperial County, and #3 in El Centro. That makes the City dispute look like one piece of a larger regional siting strategy.
View source →💰 Economic stakes
The developer described a possible $10 billion project, more than 1,000 construction jobs, roughly 75 to 100 permanent jobs, and major tax-base expansion. That helps explain why the stakes escalated so quickly.
View source →The City argues the 15-day deadline did not begin until the Planning Director deemed the application complete.
Open PDFChronology
IVCM shares plans and a 3D animation for the 95-acre City of Imperial site.
The City processes SPR 25-03 and later sends a site-plan review letter.
Developer sends data-center-as-of-right memos and asks about reclaimed water costs.
City says an Initial Study/MND, zoning amendment, and CUP route could take 6 to 9 months.
IVCM says it will focus on County and El Centro options while keeping water talks open.
IVCM proposes a CAISO market-supply bridge and initiates arbitration-related filings.
The City moves to dismiss, IVCM opposes, and the court takes the matter under submission.
Email evidence
💧 Water and reclaimed supply
The emails discuss Title 22 treatment, reclaimed-water pricing, plant costs, pipeline routing, and possible developer-agreement structure.
View exhibit →⚡ Power and IID
The record points to a major energy demand and related IID discussions, showing the project depended on more than ordinary building review.
View exhibit →🏛️ City review
The communications show tension over whether the project could move by right or required fuller CEQA and entitlement review.
View exhibit →By law, the City cannot charge more than it costs to treat the water. The cost of reclaimed water would need to be studied after the Title 22 report, including treatment, pumping, maintenance, staffing, and certifications.
View exhibitSource Library
Administrative cover sheet opening the federal civil action.
City response on reclaimed water pricing, Title 22 study, and developer agreement structure.
City proposes environmental review and entitlement processing for the project.
City states data center, substation, BESS, and generators require discretionary review.
Temporary CAISO bridge proposal for 330 MW load, naming Google as anchor tenant.
City argues the complaint fails to plead due process, retaliation, equal protection, and Monell claims.
IVCM argues site-plan review was ministerial and the federal claims are plausibly pled.
Request to notice the February 27, 2026 Superior Court order.
Federal court vacates hearing and decides the dismissal motion on the papers.
City replies that no automatic approval occurred and the project was not ministerial.
Plaintiff voluntarily dismisses defendant Katie Turner from the federal case.
Plaintiff asks the Court to set an early conference after service, dismissal briefing, and a stalled Rule 26(f) meet-and-confer.
Proposed order would set an Early Neutral Evaluation conference before Magistrate Judge Brian J. White and require confidential settlement statements.
No documents match that search.