ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    August
    3,
    1995
    PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,
    )
    Complainant,
    V.
    )
    PCB 95—91
    (Enforcement-Land)
    BELL SPORTS,
    INC., A CALIFORNIA
    )
    COPORATION, AND WASTE HAULING
    )
    LANDFILL, INC.,
    AN ILLINOIS
    )
    CORPORATION,
    AND WASTE HAULING,
    )
    INC., AN ILLINOIS CORPORATION,
    Respondents.
    DISSENTING OPINION
    (by J. Theodore Meyer):
    I respectfully dissent from the majority opinion in this
    matter based on the doctrine of prior jurisdiction.
    I also
    believe today’s opinion and order goes against the public
    policies of preserving judicial economy and minimizing litigation
    expenses.
    In Illinois, one court
    is not free to ignore an action
    pending in another court when that action involves the same
    parties on the same subject.
    (First Nat.
    Bank of Skokie v.
    Puetz,
    124 Ill.App.3d 240,
    464 N.E.2d 704
    (1st Dist.
    1984);
    Kanter
    & Eisenberq v. Madison Associates,
    144 Il1.App.3d 588,
    494
    N.e.2d 493
    (1st Dist.
    1986).)
    The public policy behind this
    doctrine is the prevention of duplicitous and vexatious
    litigation.
    (Bloink v. Olson,
    265 Ill.App.3d 711,
    638 N.E.2d 406
    (2nd Dist.
    1994).)
    Courts have contrued “same parties” as those
    litigants with sufficiently similar interests even though the
    litigants differ in name and number.
    (Skipi~erMarine
    Electronics,
    Inc.
    v. Sibernet Marine Products,
    120 Ill.App.3d
    692,
    558 N.E.2d 324
    (1st Dist.
    1990).)
    The “same subject” or
    “same cause” element is satisfied when both cases are based on
    substantially the same facts or issues,
    the crucial inquiry
    being:
    do the two actions arise from the same transaction or
    occurrence?
    (quantum Chemical Corporation v. Hartford Steam
    Boiler Inspection and Insurance Company,
    246 Ill.App,3d 557,
    616
    N.E.2d 686
    (3rd Dist.
    1993).)
    In the present matter, complainant originally filed an
    action in the Circuit Court of Macon County,
    Illinois on January
    23,
    1992 against Waste Hauling Landfill,
    Inc.
    for allegedly
    violating section 28 of the Environmental Protection Act, and
    various sections of part 807 of the Pollution Control Board
    regulations.
    (Respondents’ Motion to Dismiss,
    p.
    1.)
    On March
    14, 1995 complainant filed with the Board a second action, naming
    three defendants, including Waste Hauling Landfill,
    Inc.
    All
    three defendants named in the second action have similar
    2
    interests in the site at issue.
    In addition, the second action
    involved the same site over the same timeframe as the first
    action.
    (~
    at p.2.)
    Both prongs of the prior jurisdiction
    test have been met in this situation.
    Therefore,
    it
    is not
    proper for the Board to accept this matter until the Circuit
    Court of Macon County has resolved the action before it.
    I also believe that complainant cannot be heard to
    vigorously assert that the present matter should be heard in
    circuit court, then two months later argue that the same matter
    could be heard in both jurisdictions.
    (Respondents’ Notion to
    Dismiss, Exhibit “B”.)
    For the above reasons,
    I respectfully dissent.
    J. ~theodoreMeyer
    Board Member
    I, Dorothy N. Gunn,
    Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
    Board,
    hereby certify tha
    the above dissenting opinion was filed
    on the
    ~
    day of
    ___________________,
    1995.
    Dorothy M~-’~unn,Clerk
    Illinois P~llutionControl Board

    Back to top