November 6, 2026
written by sharon burns; writer, editor, educator, community advocate, and people’s press COO and secretary
Imperial Valley Computer Manufacturing (IVCM) alleges constitutional violations and retaliation as a separate court ruling requires further environmental review of its proposed project.
IMPERIAL — The developer behind a proposed large-scale data center near Aten and Clark roads has filed an amended federal civil rights lawsuit against the City of Imperial and City Manager Dennis Morita, alleging that city officials improperly obstructed the project and retaliated against the company for challenging their decisions.
The amended complaint, filed November 5, 2026, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, comes after an Imperial County Superior Court ruling in September that required additional environmental review of the proposed development.
IVCM represented by attorney Sebastian Rucci, alleges that the City violated its constitutional rights by refusing to process development applications under procedures the company maintains were mandatory.
The City, meanwhile, has argued in separate court proceedings that the project requires greater public scrutiny and environmental review because of its size, infrastructure demands and proximity to residential neighborhoods.
The competing legal actions raise questions about how local governments regulate emerging industries, particularly developments involving significant demands for electricity, water, and other public infrastructure.
a dispute over development approvals
According to the amended federal complaint, IVCM owns approximately 95 acres within the City of Imperial, including property zoned I-2 Rail-Served Industrial.
The company alleges that it submitted three site plan applications for a data center and that city officials failed to process them within the timeframe established by the municipal code.
IVCM argues that its proposed development qualified as a permitted use under existing industrial zoning and should have been processed through ministerial review, a process generally involving verification that an application meets established legal standards rather than discretionary policy decisions.
The complaint cites Imperial Municipal Code Section 24.19.550, which provides a 15-day period for action after an application is deemed complete.
The developer contends that the City’s failure to act resulted in approval under the ordinance’s provisions.
City officials instead sought additional land-use approvals and environmental review, according to the complaint.
IVCM maintains that those requirements were unnecessary and inconsistent with the City’s treatment of other industrial developments.
These assertions remain allegations in the federal case, not findings that the City violated the developer’s constitutional rights.
project moves into county jurisdiction
Following disagreements with the City, IVCM pursued development on nearby property within unincorporated Imperial County.
The proposed complex near Aten and Clark roads would encompass approximately 950,000 square feet, according to the City’s December 2025 petition challenging the County’s approvals.
The petition describes a project involving a large battery energy storage system, electrical substations, cooling infrastructure and approximately 100 natural gas-powered emergency generators.
The City also identified potential impacts on surrounding residential communities and raised concerns about the project’s environmental review.
Imperial County had issued a grading permit for the development, determining that the approval was ministerial and therefore exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
The City challenged that determination in Imperial County Superior Court, arguing that the County had improperly treated the development as a series of ministerial approvals rather than evaluating the larger project and its potential environmental impacts.
superior court orders environmental review
On September 9, 2026, the Superior Court issued a decision partially granting the City’s challenge. Judgment and a writ of mandate followed on September 30.
According to the amended federal complaint’s description of the ruling, the court directed Imperial County to set aside its determination that the grading activity was ministerial and exempt from CEQA.
The ruling also affected related project approvals, including the grading application, lot merger, and road vacation.
The court required project-specific environmental review, including preparation and consideration of an environmental impact report on the record before it, before the County could proceed with certain approvals or development activities. However, the court did not resolve every disagreement between the parties.
The amended complaint acknowledges that the Superior Court did not decide the remaining non-CEQA issues, including disputes over zoning classifications for individual project components.
The ruling also did not invalidate the County’s 2017 zoning amendment permitting data centers in certain industrial zones.
On October 15, 2026, IVCM and other parties filed notices seeking a new trial and to vacate the judgment. Those matters are scheduled for a November 16, 2026 hearing, according to the federal filing.
The September 2026 ruling represents a significant development in the dispute because it addresses the environmental review process separately from the developer’s allegations of constitutional violations.
developer alleges retaliation
In its amended federal complaint, IVCM alleges that city officials retaliated after the company publicly criticized the City’s handling of its applications and indicated that it was prepared to pursue litigation.
The developer points to public notices, communications with neighboring jurisdictions and the City’s lawsuit against Imperial County as examples of what it considers retaliatory conduct.
One disputed issue involves reclaimed water. IVCM alleges that it had worked with the City on arrangements to purchase reclaimed water for the development, including paying for engineering work associated with potential infrastructure improvements.
The company further alleges that the City failed to complete the anticipated water-service arrangements and contacted the City of El Centro regarding a separate potential water supply.
The developer characterizes those actions as attempts to interfere with the project. However, the complaint acknowledges that IVCM does not know the contents of the communications between Imperial officials and El Centro. The allegation that those communications were intended to undermine the project’s water supply has not been independently established.
The City’s December 2025 court petition described reclaimed water service as a matter that would require additional discretionary consideration, including possible infrastructure upgrades and a service agreement.
Whether the parties had reached an enforceable water agreement, and whether any subsequent actions were improper, remain disputed.
brown act allegations and city response
The federal complaint also references an earlier disagreement over whether the City complied with California’s Ralph M. Brown Act, which governs public meetings and certain actions by local legislative bodies.
In January, 2026, Rucci sent the City a cease-and-desist demand alleging violations connected to the authorization of litigation, the hiring of outside counsel, and other decisions involving the data center.
A February 18, 2026 City Council staff report, included among the federal court exhibits, rejected those allegations.
City Attorney Katie Turner maintained that the City had complied with the Brown Act and recommended that the council publicly ratify certain actions to provide additional transparency and reduce the possibility of further litigation.
According to the amended complaint, the City Council subsequently voted 4-0 to ratify actions associated with filing the lawsuit against Imperial County and separately approved the hiring of outside attorney Alene Taber.
The City’s staff report also stated that no council action had been taken regarding a reclaimed water agreement.
The ratification votes are part of the factual history presented in the federal complaint, but do not by themselves establish that an earlier Brown Act violation occurred.
federal claims continue as list of defendants narrows
The November 5, 2026 amended complaint identifies four causes of action under federal civil rights law: procedural due process, First Amendment retaliation, equal protection, and municipal liability.
The company alleges that the City’s actions deprived it of legally protected development rights and subjected it to treatment different from that afforded to comparable applicants.
The amended complaint also narrows the list of defendants. While the original lawsuit named several city officials individually, including Katherine Burnworth, City Attorney Katie Turner, and Community Development Director Othon Mora, the revised filing names only the City of Imperial and City Manager Dennis Morita, who remains a defendant in his individual capacity.
Although Burnworth, Turner, and Mora are no longer named defendants, their alleged actions and decisions remain part of the amended complaint’s factual narrative.
The developer continues to argue that decisions made by city officials and policymakers provide grounds for holding the City itself legally responsible for the alleged constitutional violations. For example, the amended complaint discusses Mora’s role in interpreting the City’s zoning code and processing site plan applications. It also references Turner’s involvement in the City’s legal proceedings and the City Council’s decisions concerning litigation against Imperial County.
IVCM argues that these actions were not isolated decisions by individual employees but reflected official municipal policy or decisions by officials with final policymaking authority.
The amended filing does not explain why the other officials were removed as defendants, and their removal should not be interpreted as a judicial determination regarding the allegations against them.
IVCM seeks compensatory damages in an amount to be established at trial, or nominal damages, along with attorney’s fees and other relief.
The amended complaint also demands a jury trial.
The federal allegations are separate from the Superior Court’s CEQA findings. A ruling requiring environmental review does not automatically resolve whether city officials violated the developer’s constitutional rights. Likewise, the filing of an amended federal complaint does not establish that the alleged misconduct occurred.
what happens next
The proposed data center remains the subject of overlapping legal disputes involving development approvals, environmental requirements and the actions of local government officials.
The November 16, 2026 hearing concerning the Superior Court judgment may help determine the next steps in the County’s environmental review proceedings.
The federal case, meanwhile, continues to address whether the City’s treatment of IVCM violated constitutional protections.
For Imperial Valley residents, the dispute extends beyond the proposed facility itself. Its outcome could affect how future large-scale industrial developments are reviewed, how neighboring jurisdictions participate in land-use decisions and what opportunities the public has to examine projects with substantial infrastructure demands.
People’s Press will continue following both proceedings as additional court documents and decisions become available.
Source note: This report is based on court filings in Imperial Valley Computer Manufacturing, LLC v. City of Imperial, et al., Case No. 3:26-cv-00128-JLS-LR, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, including the November 5, 2026, First Amended Verified Complaint, the comparison of pleadings and accompanying exhibits. It also references the City of Imperial’s December 4, 2025, petition in Imperial County Superior Court Case No. ECU004457. Allegations are attributed to the parties and should not be interpreted as established findings of fact.