Pa. Gen. Energy Co. v. Grant Twp.
| Decision Date | 31 March 2017 |
| Docket Number | C.A.No. 14-209ERIE |
| Parties | PENNSYLVANIA GENERAL ENERGY COMPANY, LLC, Plaintiff v. GRANT TOWNSHIP, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Pennsylvania |
MEMORANDUM OPINION
PGE and Grant Township have filed motions for summary judgment, which breakdown as follows: Plaintiff PGE seeks summary judgment on its own six remaining claims, as well as the counterclaim brought by Defendant Grant Township. For its part, Grant Township seeks summary judgment on its counterclaim. ECF No. 154; ECF No. 157.
Plaintiff Pennsylvania General Energy Company, LLC, ("PGE") filed this action challenging the constitutionality, validity and enforceability of an ordinance adopted by Grant Township that established a self-styled Community Bill of Rights Ordinance. Plaintiff seeks relief against Defendant Grant Township on the grounds that the Ordinance purports to strip Plaintiff of its constitutional rights. Plaintiff seeks to enforce its federal constitutional rights through 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Additionally, Plaintiff contends the Ordinance is in direct conflict with a number of Pennsylvania statutes and is therefore preempted. ECF No. 5.
Defendant raises a counterclaim pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and § 1988 against PGE, claiming that by bringing this lawsuit challenging the Ordinance, PGE is violating the rights of the people of Grant Township to "local community self-government" as secured by the American Declaration of Independence, the Pennsylvania Constitution, the federal constitutional framework, and the Community Bill of Rights Ordinance itself. ECF No. 10.
Previously, PGE and Grant Township filed motions for judgment on the pleadings on some of their other claims. On October 14, 2015, this Court granted Plaintiff PGE's motion for judgment on the pleadings thereby invalidating six provisions of the challenged Ordinance.1 ECF Nos. 113-114. Grant Township's motion was denied. Id. Two weeks later, on November 3, 2015, the people of Grant Township voted to repeal the Community Bill of Rights Ordinance and adopted a new Home Rule Charter. See ECF No. 180-2.
Next, PGE and Grant Township filed the instant motions for summary judgment. At issue in Plaintiff PGE's present motion are Plaintiff's remaining federal constitutional claims. Specifically, Plaintiff PGE claims the Community Bill of Rights Ordinance violates the Supremacy Clause, the Equal Protection Clause, the Petition Clause of the First Amendment, the Contract Clause, and both the substantive and procedural components of the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution and seeks to enforce all of these federal constitutional rightsthrough 42 U.S.C. § 1983. PGE also seeks summary judgment in its favor on Grant Township's counterclaim.
Grant Township filed a motion for summary judgment on its counterclaim that PGE violated its constitutional right to "local community self-government." Grant Township's motion for summary judgment seeks judgment on its counterclaim only. Grant Township has not moved for summary judgment on PGE's claims.
Grant Township's and PGE's motions for summary judgment are fully briefed and are ripe for disposition by this Court.2
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(a) provides that summary judgment shall be granted if the "movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." When applying this standard, the court must examine the factual record and reasonable inferences therefrom in the light most favorable to the party opposing summary judgment. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986).
The moving party has the initial burden of proving to the district court the absence of evidence supporting the non-moving party's claims. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 330(1986); Andreoli v. Gates, 482 F.3d 641, 647 (3d Cir. 2007); UPMC Health System v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 391 F.3d 497, 502 (3d Cir. 2004). The burden then shifts to the non-movant to come forward with specific facts showing a genuine issue for trial. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e); Williams v. Borough of West Chester, Pa., 891 F.2d 458, 460-461 (3d Cir. 1989) (). The non-moving party must go beyond the pleadings and show specific facts by affidavit or by information contained in the filed documents (i.e., depositions, answers to interrogatories and admissions) to meet his burden of proving elements essential to his claim. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 322. See also Saldana v. Kmart Corp., 260 F.3d 228, 232 (3d Cir. 2001).
In determining summary judgment, a court uses a burden-shifting scheme: When the party moving for summary judgment would ultimately bear the burden of proof at trial, it must come forward with evidence which would entitle it to a directed verdict if the evidence went uncontroverted at trial. In contrast, when the nonmoving party bears the burden of proving the claim or defense, the moving party can meet its burden in two ways: (1) by presenting evidence to negate an essential element of the nonmoving party's case; or (2) by demonstrating that the nonmoving party failed to make a showing sufficient to establish an element essential to that party's case on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial. See Celotex Corp., 477 U.S. at 323-24. If the moving party fails to meet its initial burden, summary judgment must be denied and the court need not consider the nonmoving party's evidence. See Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144, 159-60 (1970).
In a procedural situation where a plaintiff (or counterclaimant) is moving for offensive summary judgment, the movant must produce evidence sufficient to establish each element of a claim:
A summary judgment is neither a method of avoiding the necessity for proving one's case nor a clever procedural gambit whereby a claimant can shift to his adversary his burden of proof on one or more issues. To obtain a judgment in favor of a claimant pursuant to his complaint, counter-claim, or cross-claim, the moving party must offer evidence sufficient to support a finding upon every element of his claim for relief, except those elements admitted by his adversary in his pleadings, or by stipulation, or otherwise during the course of pretrial. A plaintiff seeking summary judgment who has failed to produce such evidence on one or more essential elements of his cause of action is no more 'entitled to a judgment' than is a plaintiff who has fully tried his case and who has neglected to offer evidence sufficient to support a finding on a material issue upon which he bears the burden of proof.
Duffy v. Anderson, 2011 WL 2148855, at *2 (D. Nev. June 1, 2011) quoting United States v. Dibble, 429 F.2d 598, 601 (9th Cir.1970) (citations omitted).
When considering a motion for summary judgment, the court is not permitted to weigh the evidence or to make credibility determinations, but is limited to deciding whether there are any disputed issues and, if there are, whether they are both genuine and material. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986).
Both PGE and Grant Township have provided scant material facts in support of their respective motions for summary judgment. The undisputed facts are as follows.
PGE is a private corporation in the business of exploration and development of oil and gas. ECF No. 156, ¶ 1; ECF No. 185, ¶ 16. PGE currently owns and operates natural gas wells in Grant Township, Pennsylvania. ECF No. 185, ¶ 1. PGE's exploration and development activitiesinclude drilling and operating gas wells and managing brine and other produced fluids from operating wells. Id. at ¶ 2.
In 1997, PGE's predecessor in interest put into production a deep gas well in Grant Township on property known as the Yanity Farm. Id. at ¶ 3. PGE intends to use the Yanity Well to inject produced fluids from its other oil and gas operations. Id. at ¶ 8. Based on its intention to convert the use of the Yanity Well to an injection well for disposal of produced fluids generated at other PGE oil and gas wells, PGE proceeded to obtain regulatory approval for such use. Id. at ¶ 3.
On March 19, 2014, PGE received an initial permit from the United States Environmental Protection Agency to convert the Yanity Well into an injection well, and on September 11, 2014, the EPA issued a final permit in this regard. ECF No. 185, ¶ ¶ 5-6.
On June 3, 2014, Grant Township adopted the Community Bill of Rights Ordinance. Id. at ¶ 13. The Community Bill of Rights Ordinance expressly prohibits any corporation from "engag[ing] in the depositing of waste from oil and gas extraction" and invalidates any "permit, license, privilege, charter, or other authority issued by any state or federal entity which would violate [this prohibition] or any rights secured by [the Ordinance], the Pennsylvania Constitution, the United States Constitution, or other laws." Id. at ¶ 14.
Before turning to PGE's argument in favor of summary judgment, the Court will first take up the Township's request for summary judgment on its counterclaim. Grant Township's counterclaim alleges that by challenging the Community Bill of Rights Ordinance through the instant action, PGE is violating the rights of the people of Grant Township to local communityself-government as secured by the American Declaration of Independence, the Pennsylvania Constitution, the federal constitutional framework, and the Community Bill of Rights Ordinance itself. ECF No. 10. Grant Township seeks to enforce...
To continue reading
Request your trial