ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    November 21, 1985
    ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
    PROTECTION AGENCY~
    Complainant,
    )
    PCB 79—145
    THE
    CELOTEX
    CORPORATION
    )
    and PHILIP CARE~E
    COMPANY,
    )
    Respondents.
    ORDER OF THE BOARD
    (By B. Forcade):
    On
    Octobei:
    3L,
    1985, the Celotex Corporation (“Celotex”)
    mOved to dismi~ the Philip Carey Company (“Carey”) for failure
    of
    service0 IL support of that motion, Celotex states that the
    Fourth Request fo:c
    Admission of Facts contained:
    30. The Complaint herein has not been served
    upon
    named Respondent PHILIP CAREY
    COMPANY.
    31. P:oof Df se:vic? of the Cc~p1aththerein
    upon named Respondent PHILIP CAREY
    COMPANY has not been filed with the Clerk
    of
    the Pollution Control Board.
    32. No Appearance has
    be~’enentered
    in this
    proceeding on behalf of named Respondent
    PHILIP CAREY COMPANY.
    Ce1ote~
    asserts that “all requests have been admitted.” To date,
    the Agency has failed
    to reply to this Motion to Dismiss.
    This
    motion presents several problems for the Board:
    1.
    On August 2, 1979, the Agency filed proof of service on
    Philip Carey Company, including a signed return receipt,
    certified mail, This service appears facially valid.
    2.
    Ce1otex~s
    motion is based on a “request” to admit, and
    an unverified assertion that the request was admitted.
    There is no reference to a pleading admitting the
    request, nor is there a statement under oath that no
    :cesponse
    to
    the request was made in a timely manner.
    In fact, the Board is completely in the dark as to the
    theory
    of this admission.
    66-393
    —2—
    3. Celotex has presented neither facts nor theory to
    support standing by Celotex to assert rights held by
    Carey or the Agency regarding dismissal. Nor has
    Celotex asserted any concrete harm to Celotex (aside
    from vague assertion of confusion) relating to Carey’s
    continuation as a party—respondent.
    Consequently, the Board must deny the motion to dismiss. Also
    that portion of the October 31, 1985, motion for partial revision
    which requests deletion of the sentence indicating Carey had
    filed a response is granted. The Board is now fully aware that
    counsel for Celotex speaks only for Celotex.
    Celotex’s October 31, Motion for partial revision also
    sought to delete the sentence:
    “As Celotex has already responded to the
    merits of the above motions, no further
    response is necessary.”
    The motion to delete is denied, Celotex had in fact responded to
    the merits of the motions to overrule the. hearing officer.
    ~TE~~id
    not have a response on file to the Supplemental
    Motion to Overrule the Hearing Officer (which sought the same
    relief as the original motion and for the same reasons). The
    quantity of motions and responses filed in this case to date is
    excessive. While many of those pleadings have merit, a
    significant and growing number are frivolous or poorly
    supported. The Board reserves the right to dotermine when an
    issue has been sufficiently briefed or pleaded and rule
    accordingly.
    On October 25, 1985, Celotex filed a motion
    directed
    to
    “.0.the Board or the Hearing Officer” seeking sanctions. On
    November 15 Celotex filed a Motion to Board to Rule on the
    October 25 Motion. The Board will not rule on these filings.
    On January 10, 1985, the Board responded in frustration to
    the parties reluctance to articulate to whom their motions were
    directed:
    The Board notes that its December 6, 1984,
    Order encouraged the parties “to clearly
    delineate whether a motion is directed to the
    Board or to the hearing officer to aid in
    proper~ocketingof motions.” Since that
    date, Celotex has filed four motions or
    requests on December 19, December 20, and
    January 3 that either contained no such
    delineation or specifically include both the
    Board and its hearing officer. To facilitate
    operations in the Clerk’s office and in aid of
    docketing the parties are hereby ordered to
    clearly state in any motion or request for
    68~394
    —3--
    action whether such pleading is directed to
    the Board or to the hearing officer. (Order
    of January 10, 1985)
    As the October 25, Celotex Motion is in clear violation of the
    January 10 Order, the Board will not consider it. Celotex is
    free to refile this motion or to file any other motion clearly
    directed to the Board and seek appropriate relief.
    IT IS SO ORDERED.
    I, Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
    Board, hereby certifies that the above Order was adopted on
    ~
    ,
    1985, by a vote
    Dorot y M. unn, Clerk
    Illinois Pollution Control Board
    66-395
    S
    S
    S

    Back to top