Cabot Oil and Gas v. Vera Scroggins
|Views: 5,781
|Likes: 0
Published by Clayton Moore
Cabot Oil and Gas v. Vera Scroggins
Cabot Oil and Gas v. Vera Scroggins
More info:
Availability:
See more
See less
CABOT OIL & GAS CORPORATION IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
v.
SUSQUEHANNA COUNTY, PA VERA SCROGGINS
NO. 2013 1303 CP
OPINION
7.77
Plaintiff, Cabot Oil & Gas Corporation (Cabot), has sought a preliminary injunction against Defendant, Vera Scroggins. Cabot is the leaseholder of a number of oil and gas leases in Susquehanna County. For some time now, Cabot and/or its wholly owned subsidiary, GasSearch Drilling Services Corp. (GDS), have engaged in drilling wells for natural gas production in Susquehanna County, said activities having been permitted by the proper agencies of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. During the course of well pad preparation, drilling,
fracking and
production activities of
the Plaintiffs, Cabot and GDS, Defendant, Vera Scroggins, has engaged in activities which generally fall under the generic term of trespassing upon the various well sites of Cabot and GDS causing legitimate concerns for the safety of various workers upon the well sites and access roads leading to and from the well sites. Additionally, Cabot and GDS have legitimate concerns for the safety of Defendant Vera Scroggins who has entered, without permission from Cabot and/or GDS, onto the premises controlled by them with no required protective clothing.
Further, Defendant Scroggins' Irespassing activities further concern Cabot and GDS
as impinging upon their ability to perform their permitted activities. Upon the representation of her legal counsel, Defendant Scroggins has been granted in
forma pauperis status, he claiming she is indigent and unable to pay for filing fees and transcripts fees, etc. We note there are six essential prerequisites to the granting of preliminary injunctive
relief.
Warehime v. Warehime,
580 PA 201, 860 A2d 41 (2004).
We find the preliminary injunction is necessary to prevent immediate and irreparable harm that cannot be adequately compensated by damages. We note that because of the nature of well site preparation and drilling, heavy machinery is involved. Workers must always be aware for their own personal safety as well
s
the safety of others upon the site upon which they are working. A common trespasser would only add to the dangers upon the work site which have a distinct probability in causing injury and/or death to workers and others upon the well sites, including trespassers. We further note, as we have stated, that Defendant Scroggins claims to be indigent. Hence, there could be no reasonable expectation of her adequately compensating Cabot, GDS and/or workers or their families for harm for which she may have been a legal cause. Greater injury would result from refusing an injunction than granting it. Defendant Scroggins, by our injunction, will still have plenty of geographical space in which to protest. Other interested parties, not named and not being required by this court to be named, are landholders who have entered into leases now held by Cabot Oil and Gas Corporation. They benefit by this limited injunction in not having their possible liability increased by Defendant
Scroggins' unconsented to intrusion upon their lands.
The preliminary injunction restores the parties, Cabot and Vera Scroggins, to their status immediately prior to the alleged wrongful conduct of Defendant Scroggins. We find the activity to be restrained is actionable, it constituting entry upon Cabot's
owned realty without permission and also upon well pads and access roads under Cabot's
control without permission. Such unpertnitted entry is generally construed as trespass upon others' premises. The wrongful conduct of unpermitted entry by Defendant Scroggins is manifest - well documented. As such, we find that Cabot is likely to prevail on the merits of this case. The amended preliminary injunction is reasonably suited to abate Defendant Vera Scroggins' offending activity, that is, her unlawful entry upon Cabot and/or GDS realty and her unlawful entry upon well pads and access roads controlled by Cabot and/or GDS. The granting of the amended preliminary injunction will not adversely affect the public interest. To the contrary, workers upon Cabot's/GDS's well pads and access roads will have a safer workplace in that they will not have to look out for the safety of Defendant Vera Scroggins as she will not be committing actions in the form of unlawful entry which generally constitute trespass. Vera Scroggins' own safety will be less compromised and in peril if she is not on these well pads and access roads upon which heavy machinery is operating. Landowners who have leases with Cabot will better have their private property rights maintained if the amended preliminary injunction is granted. Lastly, the motoring public traveling in the areas of the Cabot/GDS well pads and access roads will be safer if Defendant Scroggins is not obstructing the access roads and/or public roads in the area.
