ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    December 19, 1996
    LIONEL P. TREPANIER, DANIEL
    MILLER, WES WAGER, MAUREEN
    COLE, LORENZ JOSEPH, MAXWORKS
    GARDEN COOPERATIVE and AVI
    PANDYA,
    Petitioners,
    v.
    SPEEDWAY WRECKING COMPANY,
    Respondent.
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    PCB 97-50
    (Enforcement - Citizens, Air)
    ORDER OF THE BOARD (by K.M. Hennessey):
    This case involves the demolition of several buildings in the area of Halsted and
    Maxwell streets in the City of Chicago. Petitioners, each of whom resides or works
    near the buildings at issue, allege that the demolitions have resulted in or will result in
    air pollution and open dumping. Petitioners therefore allege that the respondent has
    violated, or will violate, various provisions of the Illinois Environmental Protection Act
    (Act).
    Now pending before the Board is petitioners’ motion for leave to file a response
    to the reply of the Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois (University), which
    petitioners filed on December 3, 1996. For the reasons stated below, the Board denies
    the motion and does not accept the response for filing.
    Petitioners originally named as respondents the University, other unknown
    owners and Speedway Wrecking Company (Speedway). The University filed a motion
    to dismiss the complaint on the grounds that it had not been properly served with the
    complaint and that the Board therefore lacked personal jurisdiction over the University.
    The University also argued that the complaint should be dismissed for a variety of other
    reasons. Petitioners filed a response and an amended response to the University’s
    motion to dismiss. The University filed a motion for leave to file a reply to petitioners’
    response and amended response. In that reply, the University did not put forth any
    argument regarding personal jurisdiction, but instead relied on other arguments in favor
    of dismissal. Petitioners then filed a motion for extension of time to file a response to
    the University’s reply.
    2
    On November 21, 1996, the Board dismissed the University on the grounds that
    the Board lacked personal jurisdiction over the University. Given that ruling, the
    Board found that it was not necessary to rule on the University’s other arguments for
    dismissal. Accordingly, the Board also denied petitioners’ motion for extension of time
    to file a response addressing the University’s other arguments for dismissal.
    Petitioners now renew their motion for leave to file a response regarding the
    University’s other arguments for dismissal. Because the University is no longer a party
    to this case, however, it is not necessary or appropriate for petitioners to file a response
    regarding those arguments. Accordingly, the Board denies petitioners’ motion and
    does not accept petitioners’ response for filing.
    1
    The Board notes that its November 21, 1996 order does not preclude petitioners
    from bringing the University into this case through proper service of process. The
    Board further notes that the Board has accepted for hearing petitioners’ case against the
    remaining respondent, Speedway. As stated in that order, the hearing officer should
    set this matter for hearing and this case should proceed as expeditiously as possible.
    IT IS SO ORDERED.
    I, Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control Board, hereby
    certify that the above order was adopted on the _____ day of ___________, 1996, by a
    vote of ______________.
    ___________________________________
    Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk
    Illinois Pollution Control Board
    1
    The Board also has stricken “other unknown owners” from the caption of this case
    because the record does not indicate that such owners have been identified or served.
    Petitioners are not precluded from serving additional parties in accordance with the
    Board’s rules.

    Back to top