92 A.3d 851
Pa. Commw. Ct.2014Background
- Seitel Data, Ltd. filed three petitions for review in origina l jurisdiction seeking to invalidate or enjoin local seismic regulations in Center Township, Shippingport Borough, and Greene Township under Act 13.
- Seitel alleges the municipal actions violate due process and equal protection and are preempted by 58 Pa.C.S. § 3302, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief.
- Municipalities object, arguing this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction because no enacted ordinance or resolution regulating oil and gas operations currently exists.
- Center Township and Shippingport Borough assert no ordinance exists to regulate seismic operations; Greene Township contends its Amended Seismic Resolution was rescinded, leaving no enforceable ordinance.
- The Court concludes it lacks jurisdiction under § 3306(1) due to the absence of a duly enacted ordinance and transfers the matters to Beaver County Court of Common Pleas.
- Judge Quigley’s preexisting preliminary injunction against enforcement of seismic regulations remains in effect pending transfer/dissolution.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does § 3306(1) confer jurisdiction where no enacted ordinance exists? | Seitel argues unwritten ordinances/regulations via Seismic Agreements confer jurisdiction. | Center Township/Shippingport/Brown contend there is no enacted ordinance to invalidate or enjoin. | No jurisdiction; no duly enacted ordinance exists. |
| Can rescission of an Amended Seismic Resolution defeat jurisdiction? | Seitel pled Greene Township enacted/amended a seismic regulation enforceable by contract. | Greene Township asserts Amended Seismic Resolution was rescinded and no current ordinance exists. | No jurisdiction; no current ordinance regulating seismic activity. |
| Should the matter be transferred when jurisdiction is lacking? | N/A in terms of transfer rationale. | N/A in terms of transfer rationale. | The matter is transferred to Beaver County Court of Common Pleas. |
Key Cases Cited
- Middletown Township v. County of Delaware Uniform Construction Code Board of Appeal, 42 A.3d 1196 (Pa.Cmwlth.2012) (distinguishes ordinance vs. resolution and publication/recordation requirements)
- Buckwalter v. Borough of Phoenixville, 985 A.2d 728 (Pa.2009) (ordinance as a legal act requiring proper procedures)
- Commonwealth ex rel. Millard Construction Co. v. Walton, 84 A. 766 (Pa.1912) (adequate adoption/passage of ordinances is required)
- Vare v. Walton, 84 A. 962 (Pa.1912) (ordinances are final acts following proper process)
- Floors, Inc. v. Altig, 963 A.2d 912 (Pa.Super.2009) (judicial notice of official documents supports related findings)