Seneca Res. Corp. v. Highland Twp.

• Decision Date: 29 September 2017
• Docket Number: C.A. No. 16-cv-289 Erie
• Parties: SENECA RESOURCES CORPORATION, Plaintiff v. HIGHLAND TOWNSHIP, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of Pennsylvania

SENECA RESOURCES CORPORATION, Plaintiff v. HIGHLAND TOWNSHIP, et al., Defendants.

C.A. No. 16-cv-289 Erie

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

September 29, 2017

Magistrate Judge Susan Baxter

MEMORANDUM OPINION¹

Plaintiff's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings

I. Introduction

Plaintiff Seneca Resources Corporation ("Seneca Resources") brought this action to challenge the constitutionality, enforceability, and validity of the Home Rule Charter (the "Charter") in Highland Township. Named as Defendants to this action are: Highland Township and the Township's Board of Supervisors.

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff's motion for judgment on the pleadings. ECF No. 26. For the following reasons, the motion will be GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.

II. Relevant Procedural History

Seneca Resources is a Pennsylvania corporation engaged in oil and natural gas exploration and production in various locations within the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania,including Highland Township in Elk County. In January of 2014, Seneca Resources received a permit from the United States Environmental Protection Agency to convert an existing natural gas well into an underground injection control well (UIC). The company began work soon thereafter on securing a permit from the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection. An application was submitted to the DEP in November of 2014.

While Seneca Resources was engaged in the permitting process, Highland Township adopted an ordinance which, among other things, made it unlawful for corporations to deposit, store, treat, inject or process waste water, "produced" water, "frack" water, brine or other materials, chemicals or by-products that have been used in the extraction of shale gas onto or into the land, air, or waters within Highland Township. This prohibition specifically applied to UICs. Ordinance 1-9 of 2014, § 4(a). In January of 2015, Township supervisors notified the state DEP of the Township's position that the federal EPA permit was invalid as a result of this ordinance and that any permit the DEP issued would be equally unfounded. For its part, Seneca Resources notified the DEP of its contention that the ordinance was unconstitutional and invalid under federal and state law. The DEP, however, suspended its review of Seneca's application² and, to date, has not issued a permit to Seneca Resources.

Seneca Township challenged the Ordinance in February of 2015 in this Court. See Seneca Resources Corp. v. Highland Township, Elk County, Pennsylvania, C.A. No. 15-60Erie. The parties reached a settlement and this Court entered a Stipulation and Consent Decree. The parties stipulated that the Ordinance was unconstitutional and unenforceable. In August of 2016, this Court adopted the findings of the consent decree, adjudging the Ordinance to be unconstitutional, invalid, and unenforceable. That was not the end of the matter, however.

By referendum vote in November of 2016, Highland Township adopted a Home Rule Charter which, among other things, enshrined the provisions of the Ordinance previously invalidated by this Court. Section 401 of the Home Rule Charter prohibits any corporation from engaging in the depositing of waste water from oil and gas extraction within the Township. Further, Section 404 of the Charter provides that "No permit, license, privilege, charter, or other authorization, issued by any state or federal entity, that would enable any corporation or person to violate the rights or prohibitions of this Charter, shall be lawful within Highland Township." Other sections of the Charter provide for fines for any violations of its provisions and create standing for entities such as ecosystems and "natural communities." Section 410 of the Charterdeclares that Highland Township will only recognize a federal or state law to the extent it does not violate the rights and prohibitions outlined in the Charter.³

Seneca Resources initiated this action on November 30, 2016, challenging the Township's Home Rule Charter which directly precludes its ability to create and operate an injection well within the Township. Seneca Resources has moved to invalidate the entire Home Rule Charter, and to both temporarily and permanently enjoin Highland Township and the Board of Supervisors (the "Board") from enforcing the Charter. More specifically, the company alleges that the Home Rule Charter is preempted by the federal Safe Drinking Water Act; the Pennsylvania Oil and Gas Act; and is an impermissible exercise of police power and legislative authority. Seneca Resources also alleges that the Charter offends the Constitution's Supremacy Clause and the First Amendment, as well as violates the company's rights to both substantive and procedural due process. As relief, Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment, inter alia, that the Home Rule Charter as a whole is a) preempted by federal and state law; b) is an impermissible exercise of police power by the Township; c) is a violation of the Supremacy Clause; d0) constitutes illegal exclusionary zoning; e) constitutes an impermissible exercise of legislative authority; f) is a violation of Seneca's First Amendment rights; and g) is a violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. ECF No. 1, pages 22-23.

The Township Defendants filed an Answer to the Complaint wherein they admitted the majority of Seneca Resource's claims, including the unconstitutionality and unenforceability of the Charter. Specifically, Defendants acknowledged that they

"are constrained to acknowledge that §§109-110, 401, and 404-411of the HRC are invalid and unenforceable as an impermissible exercise of the Township's legislative authority and/or police powers, and that §501 of the HRC isunconstitutional. The Defendants further respectfully requests that this Honorable court limit any relief afforded to Seneca Resources Corporation to relief that is declaratory in nature and with specific regard to those portions of the Home Rule Charter (identified above) that are properly subject to invalidation on the basis of (where appropriate) preemption by state or federal law; an improper exercise of municipal police or legislative authority; or unconstitutionality, and that it award Seneca no damages, costs, or counsel fees as against Highland Township, Elk County, Pennsylvania and the Highland Township Board of Supervisors, Elk County, Pennsylvania."

ECF No. 15, page 15.

Given these admissions, Seneca has moved for a judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(c). Seneca moves for judgment on the pleadings at all nine counts of the Complaint claiming the Home Rule Charter in its entirety is invalid, unenforceable, or unconstitutional. However, the motion's "Wherefore clause" requests that this Court enter judgment only on § § 103-106, 109-110, 401, 404-411, and 501 of the Home Rule Charter. ECF No. 26.

The Township Defendants submitted a short responsive filing to this motion wherein they concurred⁴ with Plaintiff that the Charter is unconstitutional, preempted, and unenforceable. ECF No. 31; ECF No. 32. They concurred in Seneca Resources request for a judgment on the pleadings in favor of the corporation on certain specific provisions of the Home Rule Charter.⁵

III. Standard of Review for Motions for Judgment on the Pleadings

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c) provides that "after the pleadings are closed—but early enough not to delay trial—a party may move for judgment on the pleadings." Judgment on the pleadings is appropriate only when the movant "clearly establishes that no material issue of fact remains to be resolved and that he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Rosenau v. Unifund Corp., 539 F.3d 218, 221 (3d Cir. 2008). A motion under Rule 12(c) is reviewed under the same standard as a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6). Turbe v. Government of the Virgin Islands, 938 F.2d 427, 427 (3d Cir. 1991). The Court is therefore required to "accept all factual allegations as true, construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and determine whether, under any reasonable reading of the complaint, the plaintiff may be entitled to relief." Broadcom Corp. v. Qualcomm Inc., 501 F.3d 297, 306 (3d Cir. 2007).

Here, as noted above, the Township Defendants do not oppose the motion. In some situations, courts have granted such motions without discussion or analysis. See, e.g., Spann v. Midland Credit Management and Midland Funding, LLC, 2016 WL 5390671 at *4 (E.D. Pa. Sep. 27, 2016). However, the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has instructed that a court is nevertheless required to address a defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings on the merits even if it is unopposed by a plaintiff. Stackhouse v. Mazurkiewicz, 951 F.2d 29, 30 (3d Cir. 1991); Anchorage Assocs. v. V.I. Bd. of Tax Review, 922 F.2d 168, 174 (3d Cir. 1990). This Court could not locate precedent for situations such as this case where a plaintiff has filedthe motion and defendants do not oppose, and indeed, actively concur in the plaintiff's motion. Therefore, out an abundance of caution, the Court will review the merits of the motion.

IV. Analysis of Plaintiff's Claims

A. Count I - Preemption by the Safe Drinking Water Act

At Count I, Seneca Resources alleges that the Home Rule Charter is preempted by the federal Safe Drinking Water Act, 42 U.S.C. § 300f et seq. (SDWA). More specifically, the corporation contends that § 401 of the Township's Charter presents a clear obstacle to the congressional purpose and procedures embodied in the Act. ECF No. 1, ¶ ¶ 48-54.

"Preemption is a corollary of the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution, and in general, provides that any municipal or state law that is inconsistent with federal law is without effect." King Cty. v. City of Sammamish, 2017 WL 3424972, at *2 (W.D. Wash. Aug. 8, 2017). Seneca Resources alleges that § 401 of the Township's Charter is preempted by federal...