Attorneys for Effingham County have asked a judge to dismiss the lawsuit against the county that seeks to invalidate an ordinance opponents say was adopted in violation of state and local law and paved the way for a 1,400 acre data center.
The suit was filed by Dr. Michelle Finch-Mincey, Lehman Mincey, and Raymond Carver on September 2 and outlined a series of claims against Effingham County with respect to a zoning ordinance and the Georgia Open Meetings Act. The three alleged that government officials “ignored the County’s own rules, violated laws, acted with conflicted interests, and engaged in private meetings,” and specifically asked the Superior Court for declaratory and injunctive relief.
The suit garnered national attention after it was filed by attorneys Greg Gilluly and Brent Savage of Savannah-based Savage Turner Pinckney Savage Sprouse and Gilluly and preceded a second lawsuit filed just weeks later against the Effingham County Industrial Development Authority.
Response from the County
The county responded to the lawsuit with four attorneys on the brief on October 2. Attorneys Andrew Welch and Catherine Hare of Smith, Welch, Webb & White and Benjamin Perkins and Wes Rahn of Oliver Maner in Savannah filed a response on behalf of Effingham County.
The filing claims a number of procedural issues with the suit, including an absent presentment to the county, a lacking waiver of sovereign immunity, and a time-bar on challenges to the Georgia Open Meetings Act.
Sovereign Immunity
Attorneys argue that because sovereign immunity was not waived, the Court has no jurisdiction over the claims.
Sovereign immunity is a legal doctrine that protects government entities, including county governments, from being sued unless the government has expressly waived that protection. Specific exceptions exist for things like motor vehicle accidents and unlawful government actions, thanks to an amendment to the Georgia Constitution that was approved by voters in November 2020. That amendment allows lawsuits to be brought for actions that violate state law or the Constitution, particularly when an injunction is sought, but the procedure is specific.
Effingham County, in its filing, argued that sovereign immunity was not waived and there was no underlying provision to allow the county to be sued for the claims outlined by Finch-Mincey, Mincey, and Carver.
Lacking Presentment to County Commissioners
Lawyers also argued that the suit should be dismissed because the Plaintiffs “did not ever present their objections to the Board of Commissioners before it voted” as required by Georgia law.
The brief contends that Georgia courts are consistent in holding that a constitutional or statutory attack on a zoning decision cannot be made for the first time in superior court. Further, attorneys wrote that the county should have been afforded notice prior to a court filing to “afford the county an opportunity to investigate the claim and ascertain the evidence and to avoid the incurrence of unnecessary litigation.”
“In this case, Plaintiffs do not allege that they appeared before the Board of Commissioners, raised the procedural objections now asserted, or otherwise gave the Board fair notice of the challenge before its August 4, 2026 vote,” the brief reads.
Open Meetings Act
Attorneys also argued that Open Meetings Act violations are “time barred” and there is no relief to be granted.
The Georgia Open Meetings Act requires a challenge to occur within 90 days of an allegedly unlawful meeting unless there is a delay in learning of the unlawful meeting, which extends the window for challenge to six months.
Despite the fact that the public did not become aware of the county’s actions until July 26, 2026, attorneys argue that the six-month time bar prohibits the court from taking any further action.
Other Statements
The response by the county also stated that the suit incorrectly presumed that the Ordinance in question allowed data centers in industrial zoning districts. “Data centers have been a permitted use in industrial districts for years preceding the adoption of the challenged Ordinance,” one footnote reads.
What’s Next
The somewhat brief response from the county argues that the suit should be dismissed with prejudice, meaning if it is dismissed, the suit could not be brought again under different terms.
The case is assigned to Judge Michael Muldrew. As of October 12, no hearing date had been scheduled and no orders had been filed by Muldrew on the issue.
Previous coverage on this lawsuit.
Other coverage on Project Camellia in Effingham County.
