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