CLERK’S OffFtcE

BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

AUG

1 U 2004

PEOPLE OF •THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,

)

PoHut~onControl Board

Complainant,

v.

)

No. PCB 03-51

(Enforcement

-

Air)

DRAW DRAPE CLEANERS, INC.,

an Illinois corporation, AMERICAN

DRAPERY CLEANERS & FIREPROOFERS,

INC., an Illinois corporation, and

RICHARD ZELL, an Illinois resident,)

Respondents.

NOTICE OF FILING

To: See attached service list.

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the Complainant, PEOPLE OF THE STATE

OF ILLINOIS, filed with the Illinois Pollution Control Board, its

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A REPLY and its REPLY TO RESPONDENT’S

RESPOMSE TO COMPLAINANT’S SECOND MOTION FOR PARTIAL

SUMMARY

JUDGMENT true and correct copies of which are attached hereto and

are hereby served upon you.

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS

ex rel.

LISA MADIGAN, Attorney

General of the State of Illinois

BY:

_________

JOEL J. STERNSTEIN

Assistant Attorney General

Environmental Bureau

188 West Randolph,

20th

Floor

Dated: August 10, 2004

Chicago, IL 60601

(312) 814-6986

---

SERVICE LIST

Ms. Michele Rocawich, Esq.

Weissberg and Associates, Ltd.

401 S. LaSalle St., Suite 403

Chicago, Illinois 60605

Ms. Maureen Wozniak, Esq.

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency

1021 North Grand Avenue East

P.O. Box 19276

Springfield, Illinois 62702

---

RECE~v~

CLERK’S OF~v’~

BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

AUG 10 2004

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,

-

STATE OF lLL’O~S

Pollution

Controi

boarc;

Complainant,

v.

)

No. PCB 03-51

(Enforcement

-

Air)

DRAW DRAPE CLEANERS, INC.,

an Illinois corporation, AMERICAN

DRAPERY CLEANERS & FIREPROOFERS,

INC., an Illinois corporation, and

RICHARD ZELL, an Illinois resident,)

Respondents.

)

COMPLAINANT’S

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A REPLY

Complainant, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, ex

rel.

LISA

MADIGAN, Attorney General of the State of Illinois,. pursuant to

Section 101.500(e) of the Illinois Pollution Control Board’s

(“Board”) Regulations, 35 I11.Adm. Code 101.500(e), requests

that the Board grant it leave to file a Reply to Respondents’

Response to Complainant’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment,

which Respondents filed on August 2, 2004. Complainant contends

that it is filing its Motion for Leave to File a Reply in a

timely manner and that it will suffer material prejudice if the

Board does not grant it leave to file a Reply.

---

Respectfully submitted,

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS

ex rel.

LISA MADIGAN, Attorney

General of the State of Illinois

MATTHEW J. DUNN,. Chief

Environmental Enforcement/Asbestos

Litigation Division

ROSEMARIE CAZEAU, Chief

Environmental Bureau

BY:

JOEL STERNSTEIN

Assistant Attorney General

Environmental Bureau

188 West Randolph,. ~ Floor

Chicago, IL 60601

(312) 814-6986

---

OFFICE

BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

AUG 102004

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,

)

Pollution Control Board

Complainant,

v.

)

No. PCB 03-51

(Enforcement

-

Air)

DRAW DRAPE CLEANERS, INC.,

an Illinois corporation, AMERICAN

DRAPERY CLEANERS & FIREPROOFERS,

INC., an Illinois corporation, and

RICHARD ZELL, an Illinois resident,)

Respondents.

COMPLAINANT’S REPLY TO RESPONDENTS’ RESPONSE TO COMPLAINANT’S

SECOND MOTION FOR PARTIAL

SUMMARY

JUDGMENT

Complainant, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, ex

rel.

LISA

MADIGAN, Attorney General of the State of Illinois, replies to

Respondents’ Response to Complainant’s Second Motion for Partial

Summary Judgment. In support of its reply, Complainant states as

follows:.

BACKGROU1~D

On June 27, 2003, Complainant filed a Motion for Partial

Summary Judgment against Respondent Draw Drape Cleaners, Inc.

(“Draw Drape”). In this Motion for Partial Summary Judgment,

Complainant argued that there were no material questions of fact

or law with respect to Counts IV, V, VII, and VIII of the

Complaint; and therefore, Complainant was entitled to summary

judgment on those Counts.

On July 18, 2003, Respondent Draw Drape filed its Response

to Complainant’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. In this

1

---

Response, Respondent Draw Drape argued,

inter alia,

that

Complainant was not entitled to partial summary judgment because

Complainant’s Motion was based on unsworn or unverified

statements. In its July 31, 2003 Reply to Respondent’s Response

to Complainant’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, Complainant

stated that its Motion was based on Respondent Draw Drape’s sworn

answers to interrogatories, and that pursuant to Supreme Court

Rule 213 (h)

,

“answers to interrogatories may be used in evidence

to the same extent as a discovery deposition.”

Following a hearing on the arguments, the Board granted the

Complainant’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment against

Respondent Draw Drape for Counts IV, V, VII, and VIII on August

21, 2003.

On December 30, 2003, Complainant filed an amended

Complaint, which added Respondent American Drapery Cleaners and

Flameproofers, Inc. (“ADC&FI”) and Respondent Richard Zell

(“Zell”)

.

Subsequently, Complainant filed its Second Motion for

Partial Summary Judgment against the new Respondents on July 2,

2004. Complainant’s Second Motion Complainant argued that there

were no material questions of fact or lawwith respect to Counts

IV, V, VII, and VIII of the Complaint; and therefore, Complainant

was entitled to summary judgment against Respondents ADC&FI and

Zell on those Counts.

On August 2, 2004, Respondent filed its Response to

2

---

Complainant’s Second Motion for Partial Summary Judgment.

Respondents’ August 2, 2004 Response is identical to its July 18,

2003 Response to the Complainant’s FirstMotion for Partial

Summary Judgment. Respondent again makes the argument,

inter

alia,

that Complainant’s Motion is based on unsworn or unverified

statements.

ARGUMENT

Because Respondent’s Response to Complainant’s Second Motion

for Partial Summary Judgment is identical to its Response to the

First Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, Complainant makes the

same arguments in this Reply as it made in its July 31, 2003

Reply. Therefore, Complainant incorporates by reference herein

the argument in its Reply to Respondent’s Response to

Complainant’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment filed on July

31, 2003.

CONCLUS I ON

WHEREFORE, for the foregoing reasons, Complainant

respectfully requests .the Board to:

1. Enter an order granting summary judgment for

Complainant and against Respondents ADC&FI and Zell for Counts

IV, V, VII, and VIII in the Complaint;

.

.

2. Order that Respondents ADC&FI and Zell are liable for

penalties for violations of the Act, the Board Air Pollution

Regulations, and the Code of Federal Regulations;

3. Assess the Attorney General’s fees and costs in this

3

---

case against Respondents ADC&FI and Zell; and

4. Order any other relief it deems just and appropriate.

Respectfully submitted,

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS

ex rel.

LISA MADIGAN, Attorney

General of the State of Illinois

MATTHEW J. DUNN, Chief

Environmental Enforcement/Asbestos

Litigation Division

ROSEMARIE CAZEAU, Chief

Environmental Bureau

BY:

__________

JOEL STERNSTEIN

.

4-

Assistant Attorney General

Environmental Bureau

188 West Randolph,

20th

Floor

Chicago, IL 60601

(312) 814-6986

4

---

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, JOEL J. STERNSTEIN, an Assistant Attorney General, do

certify that I caused to be mailed this

10th

day of August 2004,

the foregoing COMPLAINANT’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A REPLY and

COMPLAINANT’S REPLY TO RESPONDENT’S RESPONSE TO COMPLAINANT’S

SECOND MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT by first-class mail in

a postage prepaid envelope and depositing same with the United

States Postal Service located at 100 West Randolph Street,

Chicago, Illinois, 60601.

JOEL J. STERNSTEIN