Justice Erika M. Edwards
Petitioner sought an order compelling respondents to rescind a partial stop work order on its property for a failure to protect an adjoining property with roof netting. It now moved for the same relief and proposed intervenor. Adjoining property owner Molle, sought to intervene and dismiss the petition. Petitioner alleged Molle repeatedly refused to grant consent for petitioner to install required protective netting unless it complied with unreasonable and unrelated demands. It argued it was, thus, absolved of a duty to protect the adjoining property as Molle assumed the liability and the stop work order should be rescinded. The court provided the parties an opportunity to negotiate a reasonable license agreement but they disagreed on the terms and Molle refused to accept petitioner’s offer of weekly payment terms. While the court found the petition failed to state a cause of action, denied petitioner’s order to show cause and dismissed the petition. While granting Molle permission to intervene, it noted petitioner’s compliance with a so-ordered stipulation in which petitioner provided Molle with sufficient information and details, thereby allowing it access onto Molle’s property to provide necessary protective netting and lift the stop work order to complete the project.