A New Lawsuit Over Project Tango, and the Two Sides Are Both Developers

Part 1 of 5 · Project Tango in Court. Start at the full case file.

A developer and the homeowners-style association that governs the 202-acre business park where Project Tango is proposed have sued the land's owner. They want a Palm Beach County judge to halt two county applications tied to the data center.

WPB Logistics Owner, LLC and the Central Park Commerce Center Master Association filed suit on June 5, 2026, in Palm Beach County Circuit Court against PBA Holdings, Inc. At issue is "Project Tango," the large data center PBA Holdings wants to build on land it still owns inside the Central Park Commerce Center, off State Road 80 near Loxahatchee. The plaintiffs are represented by Dave Aronberg Law, the West Palm Beach firm of former Palm Beach County State Attorney Dave Aronberg.

The deal behind the dispute

PBA Holdings agreed years ago to sell the property to WPB Logistics in phases, under a purchase agreement the complaint says has been amended 26 times. The first phase, about 61.81 acres and 1,200,000 square feet of approved building capacity, secured its county approvals in 2022 and has closed. A second phase of roughly 75.21 acres and 1,146,154 square feet is still waiting on county approval, and that second phase is what the fight is about.

The plaintiffs allege that once Phase 1 closed, PBA Holdings stopped pursuing Phase 2 and folded it into Project Tango in its county filings. They say PBA is now claiming all 614,000 square feet of the master plan's leftover building capacity for the data center, capacity they argue was always meant for Phase 2.

Why this isn't "the developer vs. the data center"

The plaintiff, WPB Logistics Owner, LLC, is the same company Arden residents already know as the "second applicant": the entity reported as Atlanta-based TPA Group, which filed its own plan to turn warehouse space it owns here into a data center, through a process that skips the public hearing.

So this is not a developer trying to block a data center. Both companies want to build data centers on this land. The suit is a turf war over who controls the leftover capacity and how much each side gets to build. The lawsuit isn't about whether a data center gets built here.

What the plaintiffs want

They aren't asking for money. They want the court to declare that PBA Holdings had no authority to file the applications, and to order it to withdraw both. Those are the same applications residents are preparing to fight at the July 2 and July 15 hearings. The plaintiffs filed an emergency motion for a temporary injunction the same day.

PBA Holdings had not filed a response as of the records reviewed, so its side isn't on the court record yet. The case, before Judge Darren Shull, is on a non-jury track with a trial-ready date of August 6, 2027. Whatever the judge decides could shape how much of this site becomes a data center, and which company builds it. PBA was served on June 8 and has a short window to respond; a ruling on the injunction could come well before then.

What you can do

1. Get the full breakdown. Our Project Tango case file walks through the parties, the timeline, and the filings.
2. Read the filings yourself. They're public through the Palm Beach County Clerk at mypalmbeachclerk.com; search case 50-2026-CA-006330.
3. Know the hearing dates. July 2 (Zoning Commission) and July 15 (County Commission) are still where the county decides this project.
4. Add your name. If you haven't signed the petition, you can here.

Sources

• Palm Beach County Circuit Court — Verified Complaint, Case No. 50-2026-CA-006330 (filed June 5, 2026)
• A Second Applicant Appears on the Project Tango Site
• The county staff report on Project Tango
• Full Project Tango case file · Full Project Tango timeline

Based on Palm Beach County Circuit Court Case No. 50-2026-CA-006330 (court filings). PBA Holdings, Inc. had not filed a response as of the records reviewed; its position is not yet on the court record. This is a summary of one side's allegations for the public — not legal advice.