1. NOTICE OF FILING AND PROOF OF SERVICE
1
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS
MATHER INVESTMENT PROPERTIES,
)
L.L.C.,
)
Complainant,
)
)
v.
)
Case No. 05-29
)
ILLINOIS STATE TRAPSHOOTERS
)
ASSOCIATION, INC.,
)
Respondent.
)
NOTICE OF FILING AND PROOF OF SERVICE
TO:
Dorothy Gunn, Clerk, Illinois Pollution Control Board, 100 West Randolph Street,
James R. Thompson Center, Suite 11-500, Chicago, IL 60601-3218;
Carol Webb, Hearing Officer, Illinois Pollution Control Board, 1021 North Grand Avenue
East, P.O. Box 19274, Springfield, IL 62794-9274; and
R. Gerald Barris, Sorling, Northrup,Hanna,Cullen & Cochran, Suite 800 Illinois Building,
607 East Adams, P.O. Box 5131, Springfield, IL 62705
Richard Ahrens, Lewis, Rice & Fingersh, 500 N. Broadway, Suite 2000, St. Louis, MO
63102-2147
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on June 7, 2005,I filed the original Respondent’s Motion
For Leave to File Reply in Support of Motion For Stay Instanter and the Reply In Support of
Motion For Stay Instanter with the Office of the Clerk of the Pollution Control Board by electronic
filing with the Clerk’s Office On-Line (COOL).
The undersigned certifies that he served the Motion For Leave to File Reply in Support
of Motion For Stay Instanter and the Reply In Support of Motion For Stay Instanter by mailing a
copy to the above persons by U.S. Mail on June 7, 2005.
Respectfully submitted,
ILLINOIS STATE TRAPSHOOTERS
ASSOCIATION, INC., Respondent,
BY:
MOHAN, ALEWELT, PRILLAMAN & ADAMI
BY:
__/s/ Fred C. Prillaman
Fred C. Prillaman
Mohan, Alewelt, Prillaman & Adami
1 North Old Capitol Plaza, Suite 325
Springfield, IL 62701-1323
Telephone: 217/528-2517
Facsimile: 217/528-2553
C:\MAPA\Trapshooters\PCB\Trapshooters Reply Stay.wpd llm
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, JUNE 7, 2005
2
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS
MATHER INVESTMENT PROPERTIES, )
L.L.C.,
)
)
Petitioner,
)
)
Case No. 05-29
vs.
)
)
ILLINOIS STATE TRAPSHOOTERS
)
ASSOCIATION, INC.,
)
)
Respondent.
)
RESPONDENT’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION
FOR STAY INSTANTER
NOW COMES Respondent, ILLINOIS STATE TRAPSHOOTERS
ASSOCIATION, INC., by its undersigned attorneys, pursuant to Section 101.500(e)) of
the Board’s Procedural Rules (35 Ill. Admin. Code § 101.500(e)), and moves for leave
to file a reply
instanter
, stating as follows:
1.
On June 2, 2005, Petitioner received a copy of the Petitioner’s Response
to Motion for Stay.
2.
Said Response raised several issues not addressed in Petitioner’s Motion
for Stay. Only in the last paragraph of its Response (¶ 7) do Petitioners respond to the
issue raised in Petitioner’s Motion for Stay. Respondent would be prejudiced if unable
to respond to new issues that it could not anticipate in its initial motion.
3.
The Board is authorized to grant leave to file a reply if sought within
fourteen days after service of the response.
4.
Attached hereto is a Reply in Support of Motion for Stay, which
Respondent asks leave to file
instanter
.
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, JUNE 7, 2005
3
WHEREFORE, Respondent prays for an order giving it leave to file the attached
reply
instanter
, or for such other relief as the Board deems meet and just.
MOHAN, ALEWELT, PRILLAMAN & ADAMI
By:
/s/ Fred C. Prillaman
Fred C. Prillaman
1 North Old Capitol Plaza, Suite 325
Springfield, Illinois 62701-1323
(217) 528-2517 (phone)
(217) 528-2553 (facsimile)
and
LEWIS, RICE & FINGERSH, L.C.
Richard A. Ahrens
500 North Broadway, Suite 2000
St. Louis, Missouri 63102
(314) 444-7691 (phone)
(314) 612-7691 (facsimile)
Attorneys for Respondent Illinois Trapshooters
Association, Inc.
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, JUNE 7, 2005
1
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS
MATHER INVESTMENT PROPERTIES, )
L.L.C.,
)
)
Petitioner,
)
)
Case No. 05-29
vs.
)
)
ILLINOIS STATE TRAPSHOOTERS
)
ASSOCIATION, INC.,
)
)
Respondent.
)
REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR STAY INSTANTER
NOW COMES Respondent, ILLINOIS STATE TRAPSHOOTERS
ASSOCIATION, INC., by its undersigned attorneys, and in further support of its Motion
for Stay, states as follows:
1. Petitioner states that the parties have engaged in good faith, but
unsuccessful, negotiations to settle the case. (Resp. at ¶ 1) In fact, the parties agreed
to settle both the circuit court action and this Board proceeding. This dispute is
currently the subject of a motion to enforce the settlement filed with the Circuit Court of
Sangamon County.
2. Petitioner conflates preliminary injunctions with stays. (Resp. at ¶ 4)
Respondents are not required to satisfy the requirements for obtaining a preliminary
injunction in order to seek a stay of subsequent litigation. Vasa North Atlantic Ins. Co.
v. Selcke, 261 Ill. App. 3d 626, 628 (1
st
Dist. 1994). The Respondent was not required
to do so in Environmental Site Developers, v. White & Brewer Trucking
, PCB Nos. 96-
180 & 97-11 (Sept. 18, 1997).
3. Petitioner further conflates duplicitous determinations with motions for stay.
The Board has previously stayed a proceeding that was not deemed to be duplicitous.
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, JUNE 7, 2005
2
ESDI v. White & Brewer Trucking
, PCB Nos. 96-180 & 97-11 (Mar. 21, 1996 & Sept. 18,
1997). The grounds for each type of relief differ. In any event, the Board has yet to
make its duplicative determination in this case (Order of March 3, 2005), and is certainly
authorized to find the complaint to be duplicative without a motion from any party. (415
ILCS 5/31(d))
4. Petitioner’s complaint that it will be prejudiced by any delay (Resp. at ¶ 5),
overlooks the fact that any prejudice is its own doing. Petitioners filed suit in the Circuit
Court of Sangamon County in May of 2003, more than a year before filing this action
before the Board. Since the Circuit Court complaint also seeks corrective action costs,
it is misleading to suggest that the “environment loses” if a stay is entered. Petitioner’s
primary complaint is one of a lost business opportunity; the environment is being
invoked opportunistically with respect to conditions Petitioners claim to have existed for
more than fifty years (Compl. at ¶ 12) and for which remediation began three years ago.
(Compl. at ¶ 18 & ¶ 19)
5. With respect to Petitioner’s only attempt to discuss the factors to be
considered in issuing a stay, Petitioner again conflates duplicitous determinations with
motions for stay. (Resp. at ¶ 7) The crucial inquiry is not whether the environmental
enforcement action arises under a different legal theory, but whether the underlying
events arise from “the same transaction or occurrence.” Village of Mapleton v. Cathy’s
Tap, 313 Ill. App. 3d 264, 266 (3
rd
Dist. 2000).
WHEREFORE, Respondent prays for an order, staying this action or for such
other relief as the Board deems meet and just.
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, JUNE 7, 2005
3
MOHAN, ALEWELT, PRILLAMAN & ADAMI
By:
/s/ Fred C. Prillaman
Fred C. Prillaman
1 North Old Capitol Plaza, Suite 325
Springfield, Illinois 62701-1323
(217) 528-2517 (phone)
(217) 528-2553 (facsimile)
and
LEWIS, RICE & FINGERSH, L.C.
Richard A. Ahrens
500 North Broadway, Suite 2000
St. Louis, Missouri 63102
(314) 444-7691 (phone)
(314) 612-7691 (facsimile)
Attorneys for Respondent Illinois Trapshooters
Association, Inc.
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, JUNE 7, 2005

Back to top