BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
MATE TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
)
Complainant,
)
v.
)
PCB No. 2004-075
Si;47- ~
)
(Enforcement X)
01LJtI~~
con~JNOis
F.I.C. AMERICA CORPORATION
)
Board
)
Respondent.
)
NOTICE OF FILING
TO:
Carey S. Rosemarin
Law Offices of Carey S. Rosemarin, P.C.
500 Skokie Boulevard, Suite 510
Northbrook, IL 60062
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on the 10th day of February, 2004 F.T.C AMERICA
CORPORATION, by and through its attorneys,Jeremy A. Gibson and Mitchell Chaban OfMASUDA,
FUNAI, EIFERT
&
MITCHELL, LTD., shall file its MOTION
FOR LEAVE TO FILE REPLY
BRIEF INSTANTER with the Office ofthe Clerk ofthe Pollution Control Board, a copy ofwhich
is hereby served upon you.
One of Its Attorneys
Jeremy A. Gibson
Mitchell S. Chaban
MASUDA, FuNAI, EIFERT
&
MITCHELL, LTD.
203 N.LaSalle Street, Suite 2500
Chicago, Illinois 60601
(312)
245-7500
N:\SYS23\61 85\NOTFIL\00420003.doc
PROOF OF SERVICE
I, the undersigned, do hereby state on oath that I served the foregoing
NOTICE OF FILING
upon Carey S. Rosemarin, Law Offices ofCarey S. Rosemarin, P.C. 500 Skokie Boulevard, Suite
510, Northbrook, IL 60062 by placing a copy ofthe same in a properly addressed, postage
prepaid, envelopes and depositing the same in the U.S. Mail Chute at 203 N. LaSalle Street Suite
2500,
Chicago, Illinois 60601 on this
10
day of_________________ 2004.
FD~U~~
~~ALC~
Subscribed and
JO
day of
this
OFFiCIAL SEAL
KATHLEEN E BARRY
NOTARY PUBLIC STATEOP !LLINOIS
~OMM~iONEXP.MAy1a2O~
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
MATE TECHNOLOGIES, iNC.
)
Complainant,
)
C&~1(~~
~
v.
)
PCB
No. 2004-075
~J 2004
)
(Enforcement X)
p~~TEOF
ILLINOIs
F.T.C. AMERICA CORPORATION
)
~ Conf,~~,Bo~rc,
Respondent.
)
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE REPLY BRIEF INSTANTER
Respondent, F.T.C. AMERICA CORPORATION (“FTC”) hereby moves for leave
to file instanter its Reply ofRespondent (“Reply”) in support ofits Motion to Dismiss or,
in the alternative, Strike (“Motion”), which is attached.
1.
Complainant, MATE TECHNOLOGIES, iNC. (“Mate”) has filed a
complex 9-count Complaint.
The Complaint and Mate’s Response to the Motion
(“Response”) concern novel theories ofliability for which there is little precedent directly
on point. The Reply addresses and clarifies many points introduced by Mate. FTC would
be materially prejudiced if it is not allowed to reply to the theories and arguments raised
by the Response.
2.
Mate has attached to the Response an exhibit purporting to be an FTC
employee complaint to the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration. This is
an inappropriate effort to introduce factual information, as explained by the attached
Reply. FIC would be materially prejudiced if it is not allowed to reply to Mate’s
assertions.
3.
Mate served its Response to the wrong address, the former address of
FTC’s counsel. The Response served by Mate was not received by FTC counsel until on
or about January 29, 2003. FTC’s counsel has since reminded Mate’s counsel of the
correct address.
For the foregoing reasons, the Reply should be accepted instanter.
Respectfully submitted,
One of the Attorneys for Respondent
Jeremy A. Gibson
Mitchell S. Chaban
MASUDA, FUNAT, ETFERT & MITCHELL, LTD.
203 North LaSalle Street, Suite 2500
Chicago, Illinois 60601
2
PROOF OF SERVICE
I, the undersigned, do hereby state on oath that I served the foregoing
MOTION FOR LEAVE
TO FILE REPLY
BRIEF INSTANTER upon Carey S. Rosemarin, Law Offices of Carey S.
Rosemarin, P.C. 500 Skokie Boulevard, Suite 510, Northbrook, IL 60062 by placing a copy ofthe
same in a properly addressed, postage prepaid, envelopes and depositing the same in the U.S. Mail
Chute at 203 N. LaSalle Street Suite 2500, Chicago, Illinois 60601 on this
jU
day of
__________________
2004.
/
,1
(I
(1
~
Subscribed an sworn to be re me this
(D~dayof
,
2004.