The Project Tango density lawsuit
Case 50-2026-CA-006330-XXXA-MB
The basics
Case at a glance
Case file
Awaiting defendant's response- Case number
- 50-2026-CA-006330-XXXA-MB
- Court
- Palm Beach County Circuit Court · 15th Judicial Circuit · Div. AE
- Judge
- Hon. Darren Shull
- Filed
- June 5, 2026
- Defendant served
- June 8, 2026
- Track
- Non-jury (bench trial)
- Trial-ready
- August 6, 2027
- Relief sought
- Equitable only — injunction & declaratory judgment (no money damages)
Who's who
The parties
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.”
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 claims
What the plaintiffs are asking the court to decide
Count I — Declaratory Judgment & Injunction (the Association v. PBA)
Alleges that under the Declaration of Covenants and Bylaws, PBA had no authority to amend the Final Master Plan through its Master Plan Application — because amending the plan required an approval process (a board majority plus a supermajority of members) that PBA never followed. Asks the court to make PBA withdraw the Master Plan Application.
Count II — Declaratory Judgment & Injunction (WPB v. PBA)
Alleges that under the Purchase & Sale Agreement and its 24th Amendment, PBA had no authority to submit the Master Plan or Site Plan Applications the way it did — breaching duties to diligently pursue Phase 2, to coordinate with WPB, and to submit applications only with WPB's prior review and approval. Asks the court to make PBA withdraw both applications.
What they want — and what they don't
No money damages. The plaintiffs seek a declaration that PBA Holdings lacked authority to file the applications, plus a temporary and permanent injunction ordering it to withdraw both — and barring future county applications unless PBA strictly complies with the governing documents. They argue money can't compensate the loss of control over unique real property, which is why they seek an order instead of damages.
The paper trail
The documents
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.
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.