A Jefferson County judge will soon decide if a paused legal challenge against the construction of an AI data center in Birmingham can pick up where it left off after the previous judge stepped down due to a conflict of interest.
The dispute involves Nebius and several related entities, along with the City of Birmingham and its Zoning Board of Adjustment, facing opposition from local residents who argue that the development violates zoning regulations and causes disruptive noise.
The prior judge, Tamara Harris Johnson, recused herself after revealing a previous professional connection with the plaintiffs’ attorney dating back over two decades, including a shared tenure at the same law firm and her former role as Birmingham’s city attorney. Although she initially asserted she could remain impartial, the judge withdrew after Nebius requested her recusal.
The plaintiffs filed an emergency motion seeking to proceed with the preliminary injunction hearing without repeating the already completed testimony. They contend that two days of evidence had been heard under Judge Johnson’s oversight, with defendants having just started presenting their case. Invoking Rule 63 of the Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure, they argue that the new judge can review the existing record and continue the hearing from its interruption.
Delaying the trial, they assert, risks exacerbating the alleged harm caused by ongoing construction at the site, which they say interferes with residents’ quality of life due to noise and zoning violations.
The new judge, Circuit Judge Javan Patton Crayton, has scheduled a status and scheduling conference to address the motion and discuss next steps. The hearing will focus on whether the case can resume seamlessly or if a full restart of testimony is necessary.
The legal action challenges the involvement of multiple parties, including Hoar Construction LLC and Lakeshore Data Center LLC, asserting that the AI data center’s location does not comply with zoning laws. Earlier in the proceedings, Judge Johnson refused a defense motion to consolidate this lawsuit with a separate class-action suit brought by other local residents over the same project, maintaining the cases as distinct.