🟢 We won — Project Tango denied 5-1. Read more →

Project Tango in Court · Case File

Two developers, one data-center site, one lawsuit

The developer behind the Central Park Commerce Center and the project's master association have sued the landowner, PBA Holdings, over who controls the site's building capacity. Here's the whole dispute in plain English.

Case 50-2026-CA-006330 · Filed June 5, 2026 · Palm Beach County Circuit Court

The dispute in one paragraph

Who's fighting, and over what

A developer (WPB Logistics) and the master association that governs a ±202-acre Palm Beach County business park say the landowner, PBA Holdings, is claiming the project's leftover building capacity for its own “Project Tango” data-center campus instead of handing it to the developer's pending Phase 2. They've asked a judge to make PBA Holdings withdraw two county applications. The twist: both companies want to build data centers here, so the fight is over who controls how much.

Plaintiffs

WPB Logistics Owner, LLC

with the Central Park Commerce Center Master Association, Inc.

The developer (reported as Atlanta-based TPA Group) and the master association it controls as “declarant.”

v.

Defendant

PBA Holdings, Inc.

landowner / developer of “Project Tango”

The landowner that still owns the parcels where it wants to build the Project Tango data-center campus.

Emblems are illustrative AI-generated marks — not the companies' real logos.

The three things to know

The stakes, the allegation, and the defense

The Stakes

614,000 sq ft of disputed capacity

  • Control over 614,000 square feet of unallocated building capacity on the master plan.
  • WPB's entire pending Phase 2 — about 1,146,154 sq ft on 75.21 acres — could be delayed.
  • No money is sought. The fight is over control of the land's development rights.

The Allegation

Density meant for Phase 2, claimed for a data center

  • PBA Holdings allegedly stopped diligently pursuing WPB's Phase 2 after 2022.
  • It allegedly bundled the unpopular Project Tango with Phase 2 in two county applications.
  • It is allegedly claiming all 614,000 sq ft of leftover capacity — partly, the suit says, because it carries fewer restrictions on data-center use.

The Defense

Not yet filed

  • PBA Holdings was served June 8, 2026 and has a short window to respond.
  • No answer was on the record as of this review, so its position is not yet stated.
  • Likely arguments (inferred, not from a PBA filing): it owns the parcels and the leftover capacity and may seek county approvals on its own land.

How it unfolded

From rezoning to an emergency injunction

Everything below reflects the plaintiffs' account from the court filings. PBA Holdings had not filed a response as of this review, so its version is not yet on the record.

2016

Land rezoned for a large development

Palm Beach County rezones the ±202-acre property for a phased commercial build-out whose permitted uses include warehouses, offices, and data centers.

Around 2021

WPB agrees to buy in phases

WPB Logistics contracts to buy the property from PBA Holdings in phases, under a purchase agreement eventually amended 26 times.

2022

Phase 1 secured & closed

Phase 1 entitlements (1,200,000 sq ft on ~61.81 acres) are secured and the phase closes. Phase 2 (1,146,154 sq ft on 75.21 acres) is left to be entitled next.

Nov. 10, 2025

WPB accommodates Project Tango

WPB signs a “25th Amendment” (the 25th of 26) that would let PBA pursue Phase 2 approvals together with its Project Tango data center.

Dec. 11, 2025

PBA pulls out after backlash

After Project Tango drew intense public and county opposition, PBA terminates the amendment about a month after signing it, the complaint says — and then, the plaintiffs allege, stops diligently pursuing Phase 2.

Jan.–June 2026

WPB's written objections

WPB sends repeated written objections (the complaint lists Jan. 20, Mar. 3, Mar. 19, Mar. 31, May 1, and June 1) demanding PBA withdraw the application bundling Project Tango with Phase 2.

Apr. 23, 2026

Alleged misrepresentation to the county

PBA allegedly writes to the county misrepresenting whether WPB and the association had consented to the application.

June 5, 2026

Lawsuit + emergency injunction filed

WPB and the master association file a verified complaint and an emergency motion for a temporary injunction, asking the court to force PBA to withdraw both county applications.

June 8, 2026

Defendant served; case scheduled

PBA Holdings is served through its registered agent. The court enters a non-jury case-management order; PBA has a short window to respond.

Aug. 6, 2027

Trial-ready date

Discovery runs through mid-2027, with mediation before trial. The case is set to be trial-ready August 6, 2027 (non-jury). Disputes like this often settle or resolve on the injunction first.

The paper trail

What's been filed so far

Verified Complaint

June 5, 2026
  • The main lawsuit document (a “verified” complaint, sworn to be true).
  • Lays out the property history, the phased deal, and how PBA allegedly broke it.
  • Asks the court to declare PBA had no authority to file its applications and to make it withdraw them.

Emergency Motion for Temporary Injunction

June 5, 2026
  • An urgent request asking the judge to act before the county can approve PBA's applications.
  • Argues PBA broke the contract and the development's recorded rulebook (the Declaration & Bylaws).
  • Says money can't fix the loss of control over unique real property, so an injunction is needed now.

Case-Management Order

June 8, 2026
  • The judge's scheduling order setting the deadlines.
  • Puts the case on a non-jury track (a judge, not a jury, decides).
  • Sets discovery, mediation, and a trial-ready date of August 6, 2027.

Summons & Return of Service

June 8, 2026
  • Proof that PBA Holdings was officially notified of the lawsuit.
  • Served June 8, 2026 through its registered agent.
  • Starts PBA's clock to respond.

Plain-English glossary

Five terms that unlock the case

Entitlement / density
Government permission for how many square feet you can build on a parcel. The whole fight is over who controls the leftover square footage.
Master Plan / Site Plan
The county-approved blueprints. The Master Plan is the controlling document; the Site Plan is the detailed version for specific parcels.
Declaration & Bylaws
The development's private rulebook, enforced by the master association — like an HOA for a business park.
Injunction
A court order telling someone to do, or stop doing, something — here, to withdraw the county applications.
Declaratory judgment
A ruling that settles the parties' rights — here, whether PBA even has authority to file the applications.

One side's allegations · Not legal advice

Plain-English summary for the public, based on the plaintiffs' court filings. PBA Holdings, Inc. had not filed a response as of the records reviewed, so its side is not yet on the court record. Some scanned figures are noted as approximate. This is journalism and education — not legal advice. You can read the filings yourself through the Palm Beach County Clerk at mypalmbeachclerk.com.