Montgomery v. DataOne USA: The Vineland, New Jersey Noise Class Action Filed and Withdrawn in 24 Days

The facility at the center of the case is one of the largest AI builds in the Northeast: a Nebius Group campus in Vineland, Cumberland County, planned at 2.6 million square feet and 300 megawatts, with three data rooms already running while the rest is under construction, projected to use about 20 million gallons of water a year, and connected in reporting to a $17 billion deal to supply Microsoft with AI computing capacity. DataOne USA is the named defendant; Nebius, based in the Netherlands, is the operator.

The plaintiffs alleged a constant industrial hum from diesel generators and cooling equipment with inadequate sound barriers, at levels of 48 to 60 A-weighted decibels, exceeding 50 decibels between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. in violation of county standards. They described sleep disruption, anxiety, and falling property values, and pleaded private nuisance, public nuisance, and negligence on behalf of everyone within roughly one mile.

The complaint had one asset most nuisance cases lack: regulatory backup. According to legal analysis of the case, the county health department had issued a violation notice over the noise. An operator already cited by the local health authority is starting a nuisance case from behind.

On June 19, 2026, the plaintiffs filed a voluntary dismissal without prejudice. In plain English: they ended the case on their own motion, before the defendant answered, and preserved the right to file it again. No judge ruled on anything.

Early voluntary dismissals in class actions are common, and the usual reasons are procedural. A firm may decide it filed in the wrong forum, that state court offers better nuisance law than federal court, that the class definition needs work, or that a different lead plaintiff or a different named defendant makes a stronger case. Sometimes the parties are talking. The public record does not say which applied here, and we will not guess. What the record does say is that the underlying facts, the hum, the measurements, and the health department notice, did not go anywhere.

The Vineland case landed in a state where data center policy was already moving. Governor Mikie Sherrill announced a four-part regulatory plan for data center development that includes statewide noise standards, the first such state-level standard proposed in response to the 2026 noise cases. New Jersey has also enacted a Data Center Fair Share Act addressing who pays for the power large facilities demand, and municipalities across the state have been adopting local bans at a pace no other state matches.

That is the second life of a withdrawn lawsuit. The complaint put numbers on the record, 48 to 60 dBA against a 50 decibel overnight limit, a 1,013 household radius, a health department violation, and those numbers moved into the policy debate whether or not the case itself returns. For residents near the other large AI campuses in the state, the Vineland filing is the template: measure, document the ordinance violation, get the health department on record, and organize the radius.

If a data center hum is reaching your home, the Vineland complaint shows the record that gets a case filed, and its withdrawal shows why the record matters more than any single filing:

• Measure against the local standard. The case turned on 50 decibels overnight. Find your county's or city's limit and log readings at your property line at night.
• Involve the health department. A violation notice from a public agency is evidence no operator can dismiss as subjective.
• Define the neighborhood. A one-mile radius with a thousand households is a class; document who else is affected.
• Do not read a withdrawal as the end. Claims dismissed without prejudice can return, and the deadlines in our deadlines guide keep running in the meantime.

Then talk to a lawyer. Our free case review connects you with an independent attorney in our network who handles data center cases in your state, at no cost and with no obligation. The Dowagiac, Michigan case, filed the same day by the same firm, is still pending and shows where a case like Vineland's can go.