Tract has secured a pre-trial ruling in its favor as its court battle with fellow data center firm Switch Data Centers over a piece of land in Reno, Nevada, intensifies.
A dispute between the two companies has been ongoing since last year, with Switch seeking to block Tract from developing on land inside and adjacent to the Tahoe-Reno industrial site, in Storey County, Nevada.
Tract, though not a data center developer itself, intends to get its land “shovel-ready” for data center companies to move in.
Switch, which runs its Tahoe-Reno 1 campus, also known as Citadel, on the industrial site, intends to develop more data centers on land it owns next to the Tract plot. It says Tract’s actions violate a covenant it has in place that prevents any other colo data centers from being built there.
A trial to decide the case is set to begin in March 2026, but on Monday, a partial summary judgment was issued, in which Nevada district judge Jason D. Woodbury agreed with Tract’s interpretation of the covenant and disagreed with Switch’s take on the agreement.
A partial summary judgment is a pre-trial order designed to settle a specific issue or claim that forms part of a case, so that it cannot be disputed when the full trial begins.
In this instance, Switch was arguing that the covenant on the land blocked all types of data center development. Tract’s contention was that, because the covenant specifically references “colocation data centers,” these were the only type of data center not allowed, and that single-tenant, wholesale, or cloud facilities could be constructed on the land.
Judge Woodbury, who by now presumably knows more about the different types of data center than he could have ever anticipated, said in his ruling: “Tract’s construction of the covenant is appropriately narrow. Switch’s reading, while not conceptually illogical, is not a natural reading of the covenant’s plain language and stretches the scope more broadly than the text of the covenant reasonably allows.”
He added: “To the extent to which Switch internally intended to restrict single-tenant facilities - whether cloud providers, hyperscalers, or wholesale data centers - that intent was not mutual [and] was not manifested in the covenant.”
Earlier this year, Switch secured a temporary injunction preventing Tract from moving an access route across its land before the trial.
Switch, which is owned by DigitalBridge, has several projects ongoing in Nevada, including a new style of 'AI factory' data centers announced in July.
Tract, which launched in 2022, announced plans to develop the disputed site in October 2023, acquiring further parcels of land in June last year.
As reported by DCD, Tract has launched a counter-action against Switch, claiming the company and its CEO, Rob Roy, have been harassing rival developers. In May, Switch was unsuccessful in a bid to get this case quashed.
A spokesperson for Tract said the ruling "unequivocally validates" the company's interpretation of the covenant.
They said: "Switch’s lawsuit never had any basis in law or fact. Now, after two years of fruitless litigation, the court has unambiguously rejected Switch’s claims and vindicated our position. Our work will continue for our customers and investors as we bring significant additional economic development to Storey County and the surrounding communities.”
A spokesperson for Switch Data Centers said: “Switch is pleased that the court’s ruling reinforces that Switch’s covenant on certain parcels in the Tahoe Reno Industrial Center – which remains in effect for another 88 years – applies to data centers providing retail and wholesale colocation for multi-tenancy. Switch will continue to vigorously pursue all methods to enforce its rights against Tract, including in its pending easement litigation.
"Switch is firmly committed to further growth and continuing its efforts to ensure the long-term economic success of Storey County, as it has done since coming to the Tahoe Reno Industrial Center over a decade ago.”
Switch Data Centers is unrelated to Switch Datacenters, based out of Amsterdam.
Comments