ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    March
    16,
    1995
    DENNIS
    MANARCHY, MARY
    BETH
    )
    MANARCHY,
    CHRIS MANDOLINE,
    )
    and BEVERLY KAGY-MANDOLINE,
    )
    Complainants,
    PCB 95—73
    v.
    )
    (Enforcement—Noise)
    THE GOTHAN NIGHTCLUB and
    )
    JJJ & ASSOCIATE,
    INC.
    )
    Respondents.
    ORDER OF THE BOARD
    (by C.A. Manning):
    This matter is before the Board pursuant to a complaint
    filed March
    1,
    1995 by Dennis Nanarchy, Mary Beth Manarchy,
    Chris
    Mandoline and Beverly Kagy-Mandoline against the respondents, the
    Gotham Nightclub and JJJ & Associates.
    The complaint alleges
    that the respondents violated 415 ILCS 5/24 of the Environmental
    Protection Act
    (Act)
    and the Board’s noise emission level
    regulations in the operation of a nightclub called the “Gotham
    Nightclub” located at 640 W. Hubbard in the City of Chicago.1
    As
    of the date of this order, the Board has not received a response
    to the complaint.
    Pursuant to Section 31(b)
    of the Act the Board
    must make a determination as to whether the complaint filed
    is
    frivolous or duplicitous.
    (415 ILCS 5/31(b)
    (1992).)
    The Board, on numerous occasions, has in its opinions
    discussed the meaning of frivolous
    and duplicitous in the context
    of citizen enforcement actions.
    In
    (Citizens for
    a Better
    Environment v. Reynolds Metals Co.,
    (May 17, 1973)
    PCB 73-173,
    8
    PCB 46, we held that “frivolous”
    is the “failure to state a cause
    of action upon which relief can be granted.”
    In Farmers Opposed
    to Extension of the Illinois Tollway
    v.
    Illinois State Toll
    Highway Auth.,
    (September 16,
    1971) PCB 71—159,
    2 PCB 119, we
    held that the “frivolous” provision is designed to avoid
    expensive and time—consuming hearings on claims that cannot
    prevail even if the facts alleged are true.”
    After examining our
    holdings in Citizens for a Better Environment and Farmers, and
    additionally, Webster’s dictionary2, the appellate court
    tThe complaint does not allege violations of the specific regulatory
    provisions governing noise emission levels.
    The complaint
    is sufficient to
    be accepted for hearing.
    However, either prior to or during the hearing,
    the
    complainants must amend the petition alleging specific sections of the Boards
    noise emission regulations.
    2webster’s Third New Dictionary 913
    (1971) defined
    “frivolous’
    as
    “of
    little weight or importance:
    having no basis
    in
    law or fact.
    ~
    2
    determined in Winnetkans Interested in Protecting the Environment
    (WIPE)
    v.Illinois Pollution Control Board,
    13
    Ill.Dec.
    149,
    153,
    370 N.E.2d 1176
    (1st Dist.
    1977),
    that a “frivolous” pleading is
    “one that is either legally or factually deficient.”
    The instant complaint requests that the Board issue an order
    directing respondents to cease and desist from the alleged
    violations, and to bring the facility into compliance with the
    Environmental Protection Act and the regulations.
    The Board has
    the authority to grant such relief if the alleged facts are
    proven at hearing.
    Therefore the Board finds that the complaint
    is not frivolous.
    On the issue of “duplicitous”,
    in the case of Brandle v.
    Ropp,
    (June 13,
    1985), PCB 85-68,
    64 PCB 263, we held:
    Duplicitous is not defined in the Act but has
    been interpreted to apply to complaints which
    duplicate allegations identical or
    substantially similar to matters previously
    brought before the Board.
    (Citation
    omitted.)
    A complaint is also duplicitous
    if
    it
    is identical or substantially similar to
    one brought
    in another forum.
    In League of Women Voters v. North Shore Sanitary Dist.,
    (October
    8,
    1970)
    PCB 70-1,1 PCB 35, the Board held “that the reason for
    the prohibition of duplicitous complaints
    is the apprehension
    that private citizens’ complaints
    ‘might flood the Board with too
    many cases raising the same issue and
    might)
    unduly harass a
    respondent.’”
    WIPE
    V.
    IPCB,
    13 Ill.Dec. at 153,
    citing.
    League
    of Women Voters, at 36.
    The complainant states that there are no other cases arising
    from the same issue
    in another forum or court.
    The Board
    is
    unaware of any other cases arising from the same issue therefore
    the Board finds the complaint is not duplicitous and this matter
    is directed to hearing.
    The hearing must be scheduled and completed in a timely
    manner consistent with Board practices.
    The hearing officer
    shall inform the Clerk of the Board of the time and location of
    the hearing at least 40 days in advance of hearing so that public
    notice of hearing may be published.
    After hearing, the hearing
    officer shall submit an exhibit list,
    a statement regarding the
    credibility of witnesses and all actual exhibits to the Board
    within five days of the hearing.
    If after appropriate consultation with the parties, the
    parties fail to provide an acceptable hearing date or if after an
    attempt the hearing officer
    is unable to consult with the
    parties, the hearing officer shall unilaterally set a hearing
    3
    date in conformance with the schedule above.
    The hearing officer
    and the parties are encouraged to expedite this proceeding as
    much as possible.
    IT IS SO ORDERED.
    I, Dorothy M. Gunn,
    Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Contro.~1-~
    Board,
    he,~ebycertify that the above order was adopted on the /~
    day of
    ~f
    -4~Lh~-
    ,
    1995,
    by a vote of
    7~’.
    Pol
    Control Board

    Back to top