Montgomery County and the Missouri Department of Economic Development have filed separate motions to dismiss the lawsuit filed by Preserve Montgomery County LLC Feb. 16 against the county regarding the Amazon data center project.
The state filed its motion March 19, while the county filed its motion March 20.
In support of its motion to dismiss, the county also filed suggestions in support of the motion to outline in more detail the county’s position on the case.
The county asserts in its motion that Preserve Montgomery County, a citizen group opposing data centers, does not have legal standing to file a petition under Missouri’s Sunshine Law as the entity is not an aggrieved person, taxpayer or citizen as required by Missouri statutes.
Standing to sue is a legal requirement ensuring that only a party with a direct, concrete and actual or imminent stake in a controversy can bring a lawsuit.
In its suggestions in support filing the county asserts that Preserve Montgomery County makes numerous allegations for which it has no standing, including making claims on behalf of third parties; making claims where it has suffered no harm; making claims for events that were completed before it existed; making claims involving contracts it is not involved in and making claims where it had no legal interest.
Preserve Montgomery County was formed on Dec. 27, 2025. According to the county, that means the LLC has no legal right to file a lawsuit for any incident that occurred prior to that date. Many of the allegations filed by Preserve in its original petition predate the Dec. 27 date.
The county also alleges that no standing exists regarding the counts relating to failing to adequately evaluate water usage or failure to adequately evaluate tax abatements.
More specifically the county asserts, “Plaintiff (Preserve) alleges the right, without stating a cause of action, to require Montgomery County to review additional documentation that Plaintiff finds more favorable with respect to water use of a data center or tax impacts of tax abatement.”
The county asserts that effectively Preserve is asking a court to inject the LLC into the deliberative process the county took with respect to the data center and unwind meetings based upon facts Preserve thinks the county should have considered, without any legal basis.
The motion also asserts that Preserve Montgomery County is not a third-party beneficiary of the contract between the Missouri DED and the county and therefore also has no standing to sue under the terms of that contract.
The county’s motion also asks for dismissal as the Preserve Montgomery suit fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. With respect to the Sunshine Law violations, the county asserts that all meeting notifications were made pursuant to law and that Preserve has made no allegations that the Sunshine law was violated. The county in fact alleges that the additional step of posting agendas on the county’s Facebook page goes above and beyond the statutory requirements.
The county also questions a portion of Preserve’s lawsuit relating to the charging of excessive fees. The motion to dismiss notes that Preserve is effectively attempting to assert the rights of others that are not listed as parties in the suit. Preserve in its complaint alleged that two residents and Jeffery Law Group filed records requests of the county and were charged exorbitant fees. At no point though did Preserve as an entity request any public records from the county and therefore suffered no damages, the county asserts.
One of the allegations in Preserve’s petition is that the county failed to provide notice to the county’s taxing districts of the taxing district hearing set on Dec. 18, 2025. The county’s motion to dismiss though discusses the fact that the allegation in Preserve’s petition focuses on public notices prior to the hearing, with no direct proof that the county failed to provide notice to the respective taxing districts.
The motion in the alternative asks the court to strike portions of Preserve Montgomery County’s complaint because certain paragraphs are unrelated to any specific claims made in the complaint Specifically, the county asks the court strike portions which relate to general descriptions of data centers and relate to public records requests filed by two individuals and the Jeffrey Law Group.
State’s motion
The Missouri Department of Economic Development filed a separate motion to dismiss asserting that Preserve Montgomery County failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Specifically the state asserts that the agreement between DED and Montgomery County was for an industrial site development project. The state asserts that the agreement does not have anything to do with the agreement between Amazon and the county and the county. The state also asserts that it was under no legal obligation to ensure that the county followed open meetings laws with respect to the Amazon project as the DED is not involved in that project. For those reasons the state asks that the complaint against DED be dismissed.
Comments
No comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here