Pennsylvania’s First Case of Unconventional Gas Forced Pooling
Commonwealth Court Docket # 266 MD 2014
Matteo et al vs. Hilcorp Energy et al
Below are links to the documents in the Commonwealth Court case related
to Pennsylvania’s first case of Forced Pooling for Unconventional Oil
& Gas under the Oil & Gas Conservation Law (originally passed
in 1961).
NOTE: This is an entirely unofficial repository.
I am making every effort to keep it up to date and complete, but there
are likely to be some delays in the appearance here of some documents.
This is the 3rd “branch” of this case. Hilcorp’s original application
for Well Spacing Units under the Oil & Gas Conservation Law was
submitted to the DEP. The application was returned by DEP with the
claim that DEP lacked jurisdiction and the application should be filed
with the Environmental Hearing Board, where the 1st “branch” of this
case was captioned
Environmental Hearing Board Docket 2013155.
That docket has been closed, and in its concluding order the EHB
directed that DEP does indeed have jurisdiction, and the case should be
refiled with DEP. Hilcorp refiled with the DEP, where the case is being
heard as
DEP Docket # 2013-1;
that proceeding is the 2nd “branch” of this case. The petitioners in
the case below seek to stay the DEP proceedings and have the Oil &
Gas Conservation Law declared unconstitutional.
DOCKET SHEET: The current version of the Docket Sheet for this case is available here:
<
http://ujsportal.pacourts.us/DocketSheets/AppellateCourtReport.ashx?docketNumber=266+MD+2014>
(Note that this link causes a “live reprint” of the docket sheet which
is date and time stamped based on when you click the link. That means
you are likely to get a “different” version of the docket sheet every
time you click the link, even if there have been no real changes since
your previous click.)
For Commonwealth Court, the docket sheet does seem to contain the judge’s orders, but not links to actual filings.
DOCUMENTS:
<
2014_05_02_Petition for Review-Email.pdf>
Petition for Review in the Nature of a Complaint for Declaratory Judgment and Injunctive Relief
This is the original lawsuit. Note this document is superseded by the
amended petition below. Note the attachments are in the document immediately below.
<
2014_05_02_Petition%20Exhibits-Email.pdf> Exhibits for the filing above.
<
2014_05_20_Preliminary%20Objections.pdf>
Preliminary Objections to Petition for Review in the Nature of a Complaint for Declaratory Judgment and Injunctive Relief
<
2014_06_05_Amended%20Petition.pdf>
Amended Petition for Review in the Nature of a Complaint for Declaratory Judgment and Injunctive Relief
This is the amended version of the lawsuit, which completely replaces the original version.
<
2014_06_06_Order%20Filed.pdf>
Order
The judge struck Hilcorp’s Preliminary
Objections due to the amended complaint, and struck petitioners’ Count
VI for refiling. (Note this order also appears within the Docket Sheet.)
<
2014_06_18_Preliminary%20Objections.pdf>
Preliminary
Objections to Amended Petition for Review in the Nature of a Complaint
for Declaratory Judgment and Injunctive Relief
This is Hilcorp’s refiled preliminary
objections in response to the amended petition. Note an attached
memorandum of law is in the document immediately below.
<
2014_06_18_Memorandum%20of%20Law%20Filed.pdf>
Memorandum in Support of Preliminary Objections to Amended
Petition for Review in the Nature of a Complaint for Declaratory
Judgment and Injunctive Relief
This is Hilcorp’s memorandum of law supporting their refiled preliminary objections.
<
2014_07_08_Application%20for%20Extension%20of%20Time%20to%20File.pdf>
Application in the Form of a Motion for an Enlargement of Time to File Responsive Pleading
The state agencies named in the lawsuit appeal for more time to file a response.
The judge issued an order granting the extension of time to file. (Note this order appears within the Docket Sheet.)
<
2014_07_18_Answer%20to%20Preliminary%20Objections.pdf>
Answer to Preliminary Objections
This is the petitioners’ response to Hilcorp’s refiled preliminary objections.
<
2014_07_18_Amicus%20Curiae%20Brief.pdf>
Brief
of Amici Curiae Delaware Riverkeeper, Delaware Riverkeeper Network and
Mountain Watershed Association, in Opposition to Respondents’
Preliminary Objections
Environmental groups file a friend of the court brief opposing Hilcorp’s preliminary objections.
<
2014_08_13_Commonwealth%20Preliminary%20Objections.pdf>
Commonwealth Respondents’ Preliminary Objections to the Amended Petition for Review
This is the state’s preliminary
objections in response to the amended petition. Note an attached
memorandum of law is in the document immediately below.
<
2014_08_13_Commonwealth%20Brief%20in%20support%20of%20POs.pdf>
Brief in Support of Commonwealth Respondents’ Preliminary Objections to the Amended Petition for Review
This is the state’s memorandum of law supporting their preliminary objections.
Order (from the Docket Sheet)
August 18,
2014 Order
Filed
08/19/2014
Per Curiam
Document Name: petitioner shall file a single brief (4 copies) in opposition to the
Comment: preliminary objections of Hilcorp Energy Company
and the Commonwealth respondents on or before September 15, 2014.
Argument
on respondents' preliminary objections is set for September 24, 2014 at
10:00 a.m.
The argument shall be conducted by telephone call to offices of counsel
of record,
and shall originate from the chambers of a designated judge of the
Commonwealth
Court sitting in Harrisburg. CELL PHONES MAY NOT BE USED.