ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    March
    19, 1987
    AMERICANS FOR A CLEAN
    )
    ENVIRONMENT,
    Complainants,
    v.
    )
    PCB 86—68
    MERVIS INDUSTRIES,
    INC.
    and
    H
    &
    L LANDFILL,
    INC.
    Respondents.
    ORDER OF THE BOARD
    (by J.D. Dumelle):
    This matter comes before the Board upon various motions
    filed on behalf of Mervis Industries, Inc. (Mervis).
    On January
    21,
    1987, Mervis moved
    to vacate the Board’s December
    18,
    1986
    Order
    in this matter denying Mervis’
    motion to dismiss and motion
    for summary judgment and also moved
    for oral argument.
    Mervis
    filed
    a brief
    in support of that motion on January 30,
    1987.
    Americans for a Clean Environment
    (ACE)
    responded
    to that motion
    on February
    2,
    1987.
    On February 17,
    1986 Mervis moved
    to
    certify order
    for appeal and for stay.
    On March
    5,
    1987, ACE
    moved
    for continuance, and on March
    16,
    1987, Mervis responded.
    Mervis first argues that “the Board,
    in its efforts
    to
    foster citizen complaints, has ignored
    .
    .
    .
    due process and the
    •
    •
    .
    law regarding adequacy of pleadings.”
    (Brief at 3—6).
    Mervis next argues that the Board erred
    in failing
    to deem
    certain facts admitted due
    to a tardy, incomplete, and unverified
    response to
    a request to admit contrary to Board Procedural
    Rules.
    (Brief at 6—9).
    Mervis’
    final arguments are that the
    Board improperly denied summary judgement and failed to set forth
    the basis of its decision.
    (Brief at 9—13).
    The Board’s December 18,
    1986
    Order was
    issued
    in response
    to motion which were premised almost exclusively upon admissions
    due to the failure of timely response
    to requests to admit.
    The
    Board continues to believe that
    it has the discretion to allow
    late filings under circumstances such
    as exist
    in this case
    in
    that the Environmental Protection Act encourages citizen suits
    and to place too many technical obstacles in the way of citizens
    serves to defeat that intent.
    The Board, therefore,
    finds no
    reason to vacate
    its December
    18 Order.
    On the other
    hand, Mervis’
    instant motion
    includes several
    other bases
    for dismissal which are not without merit.
    Most
    76.341
    —2—
    particularly, Mervis continues to assert that ACE’S filing
    in
    this matter
    still fail
    to allege sufficient facts to state a
    cause of action with sufficient clarity to allow the preparation
    of an adequate defense.
    The Board agrees.
    When the Board first
    rejected this argument by Order of July 31,
    1986,
    it did so
    in
    the hope that the issues could
    be clarified during the discovery
    process.
    That, however, has not been the case.
    While
    it may be
    possible
    to sift through the various findings to find some
    combination of statements and allegations
    to support some
    violation, nowhere
    is any coherent set of allegations clearly
    presented which states
    a cause of action.
    It should not be
    Mervis’
    obligation
    to attempt to construct ACE’s case for it and
    then to defend against
    it.
    Rather
    it
    is ACE’s obligation to
    clearly set forth those allegations which
    it believes it could
    prove at hearing which support a violation.
    That
    it has failed
    to do.
    If anything, ACE’S latest filing serves to demonstrate
    that it has not, as yet, fully developed its case.
    The Board, therefore,
    dismisses this case without prejudice
    for failure
    to state
    a cause of action upon which relief could be
    granted.
    ACE
    is,
    therefore, allowed to file
    a new complaint,
    if
    it
    so desires, which clearly sets forth
    the alleged violations.
    The remaining motions are denied as moot.
    IT IS SO ORDERED.
    Board Member Ron Flemal dissented.
    I, Dorothy M.
    Gunn, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
    Board, her bjcertify that ~he above Order was adopted on
    the
    _____________
    day
    of
    ,7-~-~-?-
    ,
    1987 by a vote
    of
    ______________.
    Dorothy M.
    unn,
    Clerk
    Illinois Pollution Control
    Board
    76.342

    Back to top