ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    August 9, 2001
     
    PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,
     
    Complainant,
     
    v.
     
    SKOKIE VALLEY ASPHALT, INC.,
     
    Respondent.
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
     
     
     
     
     
    PCB 96-98
    (Enforcement – Water)
     
     
     
     
    ORDER OF THE BOARD (by R.C. Flemal):
    This matter is before the Board on a motion to reconsider (motion) filed on June 6, 2001,
    by the Illinois Attorney General’s Office on behalf of the People of the State of Illinois
    (complainant). Complainant also filed a petition for oral argument (petition) on July 25, 2001.
    Complainant requests that the Board reconsider its May 3, 2001 order denying complainant’s
    motion for summary judgment. On June 28, 2001, respondent filed a motion for leave to file
    instanter
    a response to the motion and a response. On July 25, 2001, complainant filed a reply to
    the response. The Board grants respondent’s motion for leave to file a response
    instanter
    .
    Complainant’s motion to reconsider is granted, and the petition for oral argument is denied.
     
    In ruling on a motion for reconsideration the Board will consider factors including new
    evidence, or a change in the law, to conclude that the Board’s decision was in error. 35 Ill. Adm.
    Code 101.902. In Citizens Against Regional Landfill v. County of Board of Whiteside (March
    11, 1993), PCB 93-156, we observed that "the intended purpose of a motion for reconsideration
    is to bring to the court's attention newly discovered evidence which was not available at the time
    of hearing, changes in the law or errors in the court's previous application of the existing law.”
    Korogluyan v. Chicago Title & Trust Co., 213 Ill. App. 3d 622, 627, 572 N.E.2d 1154, 1158 (1st
    Dist. 1992).
     
    Complainant asserts that in its motion for summary judgment, complainant provided an
    affidavit from Chris Kallis, an inspector with the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency.
    Mot. at 3. In the affidavit, Kallis stated that as a result of his inspections at respondent’s facility
    and a review of documents provided by respondent, he concluded among other things, that
    respondent filed false discharge monitoring reports for December 1990 and January 1991, and
    has not had a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit since March 1, 1991.
    Complainant notes that in respondent’s response to the motion for summary judgment,
    respondent did not contradict Kallis’ assertions with a counter-affidavit, and therefore Kallis’
    assertions must be taken as admitted. Mot. at 3, citing Getman v. Indiana Harbor Belt R.R., 172
    Ill. App. 3d 297, 526 N.E. 2d 557 (1st
      
    Dist. 1988); Patrick Media Group, Inc. v. City of Chicago,
    255 Ill. App. 3d 1, 626 N.E. 2d 1066 (1st Dist. 1993). Complainant further argues that the well-
    pleaded facts in its motion for summary judgment, taken as admitted, make summary judgment
    appropriate. Mot. at 6.
     
     
     
    2
    In respondent’s response to petitioner’s motion, respondent argues that because of the
    travel schedule of its affiant, James Huff, respondent could not get a signed affidavit in a timely
    manner.
    Instanter
    Mot. at 1. Now attaching an affidavit from Huff, respondent alleges that
    genuine issues of material facts exist in this matter. Response at 1.
     
    In complainant’s reply to the response, complainant argues that respondent waived the
    right to dispute the facts in Kallis’ affidavit, when respondent failed to file a counter-affidavit in
    its response. Reply at 2, 3.
     
    The Board finds that respondent’s response to the motion for summary judgment lacked
    an affidavit to prevent the facts of complainant’s affidavit from being admitted. The Board
    therefore grants complainant’s motion for reconsideration. However, the Board continues to find
    that genuine issues of material fact exist. Therefore, the Board orders that the matter be set for
    hearing.
     
    The petition for oral argument is denied as moot.
     
    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 9th day of August 2001 by a vote of 6-0.
     
     
      
      
      
      
      
      
     
     
      
      
      
      
      
      
    Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk
     
      
      
      
      
      
      
    Illinois Pollution Control Board
     
      

    Back to top