ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    June 6,
    1991
    GOOSE
    LAKE
    ASSOCIATION,
    )
    Complainant,
    v.
    )
    PCB 90—170
    (Enforcement)
    ROBERT 3.
    DRAKE,
    SR., FIRST
    )
    NATIONAL BANK OF JOLIET AS
    )
    TRUSTEE, TRUST NO. 370~
    )
    Respondent.
    ORDER OF THE BOARD
    (by
    3.
    C. Marlin):
    This matter is before the Board on Respondent Robert
    3.
    Drake,
    Sr. and First Bank of Joliet, Trustee’s (“Drake”) Motion
    for Reconsideration filed May 15,
    1991.
    The motion seeks to have
    the Board reconsider the Board’s May 9,
    1991 Order which denied
    Drake’s Motion to dismiss.
    Drake wishes to submit additional
    information to show that the complaint filed by complainants is
    duplicitous or frivolous.
    The issue of whether this matter was duplicitous or
    frivolous was first decided by the Board on October 25,
    1990.
    The Board decided it was not.
    Then in a filing dated March 28,
    1991 the Drake’s raised new matters which re-opened this
    question.
    By Board Order dated April 11,
    1991 the Board invited
    the Complainant to respond.
    When no response was received, the
    Board reconsidered the matter, and denied the motion
    to
    dismiss.
    The Drake’s now wish to submit further information to support
    their claim.
    The burden is upon the movant to clearly state the reasons
    for and the grounds upon which a motion is made.
    Facts asserted
    which are not of record in the proceeding must be supported by
    affidavit.
    35 Ill. Adm. Code 101.242(a).
    Motions to strike or
    dismiss a proceeding must be filed with the Board within 21 days
    after service of the challenged document.
    35 Ill. Adm. Code
    101.243.
    As can be seen it is the movants duty to timely file
    and adequately support a motion directed to the Board.
    The Board has reviewed the matter of whether this case is
    duplicitous or frivolous no less than twice.
    In each, however,
    the Board did not find the Drake’s motion to be supported by
    record and argument.
    Each was denied.
    The Board now reviews the matter of whether this complaint
    is duplicitous or frivolous for a third time.
    The Drake’s allege
    that as the complainant was an intervenor-defendant
    in a Grundy
    County Circuit Court action brought by the developers of Botomika
    123— 13
    2
    Subdivision
    (the Drake’s) and the County of Grundy which was
    settled by agreement.
    The settlement agreement is attached, as
    is a plat map and an Illinois Department of Public Health Code.
    The complainant is not a party to the settlement agreement.
    The
    Drake’s argue that the complainants are bound not as signatories,
    which they are not, but because the complainants are
    “collaterally estopped from raising in this action the same
    issues that it has previously raised, or could have raised,
    in
    the prior court action which was resolved by settlement.”
    Our
    review of the submission shows little else to support the claim
    that the complainant is raising matters that were litigated, or
    could have been litigated,
    as an intervenor—defendant,
    in the
    Grundy County forum.
    The Respondent’s claim is, again
    insufficiently supported by the facts and the record.
    The motion
    is therefore denied.
    IT IS SO ORDERED.
    I,
    Dorothy M. Gunn,
    Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
    Board, hereby certify that the
    ove Order was adopted on the
    ____________
    day of _______________________,
    1991 by a vote
    of
    7—C.
    7~2~c&.~?
    i7~.
    Dorothy M. Gin,
    Clerk
    Illinois Po1~XutionControl Board
    12
    3—14

    Back to top