ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    December
    1,
    1994
    DOALL COMPANY, DOALL CREDIT
    )
    CORPORATION, and THE
    )
    RAMS-HEAD
    COMPANY,
    )
    Complainants,
    )
    v.
    )
    PCB 94—256
    (Enforcement)
    MOBIL OIL COMPANY, INC.,
    )
    SKOKIE VALLEY ASPHALT
    )
    COMPANY, INC.,
    and
    )
    SEPTRAN,
    INC.,
    Respondents.
    ORDER OF THE BOARD
    (by N. NcFawn):
    This matter is before the Board on several filings,
    including the following:
    (1)
    a November 9,
    1994 motion for
    extension of time to respond to the complaint, filed by Skokie
    Valley Asphalt Company (SVAC);
    (2)
    a November 16,
    1994 motion to
    dismiss the complaint accompanied by a motion to file instanter,
    filed by SVAC;
    (3)
    a November 17,
    1994 joint motion for extension
    of time for complainants to respond to Mobil Oil Company’s
    October 11,
    1994 motion to dismiss, filed on behalf of Mobil Oil
    Company
    (Mobil) and DoAll Company, DoA11 Credit Corporation, and
    the Rams—Head Company
    (collectively, D0A1I); and
    (4)
    a November
    23,
    1994 response by DoAll to SVAC’s November 16,
    1994 motion for
    leave
    to file instanter its motion to dismiss and DoA11’s motion
    for extension of time.
    We will deal with each of these motions
    in turn.
    November 16,
    1994 Motion by SVAC to File Instanter Its Motion to
    Dismiss the Complaint
    On November 16,
    1994 SVAC filed a motion to file instanter
    its motion to dismiss the complaint.
    In seeking to file
    instanter, SVAC asserts that it is simply joining in Mobil’s
    motion to dismiss and incorporating the applicable substantive
    legal arguments of Mobil’s motion,
    and, therefore, petitioner is
    not prejudiced by SVAC’s failure to file within fourteen days as
    required by Board rule.
    DoAll filed a response to SVAC’s motion to file instanter
    and a motion for extension of time on November 23,
    1994.
    DoA11
    states that it has no objection to SVAC’s motion for leave to
    file instanter, although DoAll does object to the underlying
    motion to dismiss.
    DoAll acknowledges that SVAC’s motion to
    dismiss raises issues which are identical to those raised in
    Mobil’s motion to dismiss.
    Furthermore, DoAll states that,
    if
    2
    SVAC’s motion to file instanter is granted, counsel for D0A11 and
    SVAC have agreed to extend D0A11’s time to respond to SVAC’s
    motion to dismiss until January 20,
    1995.
    Yet, D0A11 requests
    that the Board grant it an extension until and including December
    15,
    1994 to respond to SVAC’s motion to dismiss.
    The Board hereby grants SVAC’s motion to file instanter its
    motion to dismiss.
    In the interests of judicial economy,
    complainants are hereby granted an extension to file a response
    to the motion to dismiss until January 20,
    1995,
    the same date
    DoAll’s response to Mobil’s motion to dismiss is now due.
    (See
    discussion of the November 17,
    1994 joint motion,
    supra.)
    November 9.
    1994 Notion by SVAC for Extension of Time to Respond
    to the Complaint
    In support of its November 9,
    1994 motion for extension of
    time to respond to the complaint,
    SVAC states that it has raised
    whether it is the proper corporate entity to be sued in this
    action, and the parties are investigating this matter.
    Furthermore,
    SVAC represents that DoAll has no objection to the
    grant of the requested extension.
    SVAC therefore requests that
    the Board extend all time limitations by which SVAC must respond
    until November 28, 1994.
    Because the Board has granted SVAC’s
    motion to file instanter its motion to dismiss, this motion is
    moot.
    November 17,
    1994 Joint Motion for Extension of Time for
    Complainant’s to Respond to Mobil’s Motion to Dismiss
    The November
    17,
    1994 joint motion filed by DoAll and Mobil
    seeks an extension of time for complainants to respond to Mobil’s
    motion to dismiss.
    In their motion, the parties state that they
    have commenced settlement negotiations.
    They therefore request
    that the Board extend the time for DoA11 to respond to Mobil’s
    motion to dismiss until January 20,
    1995.
    This motion
    is granted.
    DoAll’s response to Mobil’s motion
    to dismiss is now due on or before January 20,
    1995.
    IT IS SO ORDERED.
    I, Dorothy N. Gunn,
    Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
    Board,
    hereby certify that the above order was adopted on the
    /~‘~
    day of
    V~--~.-e~-~
    1994,
    by a vote of
    /
    —
    ~
    )~,
    Dorothy M.
    G,,317’ln,
    Clerk
    Illinois Pol~.utionControl Board

    Back to top