ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

November

4, 1993

LARRY SLATES, LONNIE

SEYMOUR, JAMES KLABER,

FAYE

MOTT,

and HOOPESTON

COMMUNITY MEMORIAL HOSPITAL,

Petitioners,

v.

)

PCB 93—106

)

(Landfill Siting Review)

ILLINOIS LANDFILLS, INC., and

HOOPESTON CITY COUNCIL,

on

behalf

of

the CITY OF

)

HOOPESTON,

)

)

Respondent.

ORDER OF THE

BOARD

(by J. Theodore Meyer):

This matter is before the Board on two motions. First, on

November 1, 1993 petitioners filed a motion to dismiss.

Petitioners seek to dismiss the motion to reconsider filed by

respondent Illinois Landfills, Inc. (ILl) on October 27, 1993.

Respondent ILl filed a response in opposition to the motion to

dismiss on November 1, 1993.

Petitioners object to ILl’s motion to reconsider

because

they. did not receive that motion on the same day that the motion

to reconsider was filed with the Board. ILl’s motion to

reconsider was filed with the Board on October 27, 1993, and

petitioners state that as of 4:30 p.m. on October 29, 1993 they

had not received that motion to reconsider. Petitioners allege

that they should have received the motion to reconsider on the

same day as ILl served that motion on the Board. Petitioners ask

that the Board impose sanctions pursuant to 35 Ill. Adm. Code

101.280, and dismiss ILl’s motion with prejudice, or stay the

proceedings, and order ILl to pay petitioners’ costs in obtaining

the order of sanctions.

Petitioners’ motion to dismiss is denied. As ILl points

out, petitioners cite no authority for their allegation that a

moving party must ensure that a motion be received by other

parties on the same day as it is filed with the Board. Sections

101.142 and 101.241 of the Board’s procedural rules provide that

motions may be served personally, by United States mail, or by

messenger service. The certificate of service attached to ILl’s

motion to reconsider states that the motion was filed with the

Board by hand delivery, and that all other parties were served by

---

2

United States mail.’ Petitioners have failed to point to any

violations of the Board’s procedural rules, and the request for

sanctions is denied.

The second motion is petitioners’ November 3, 1993 motion

for extension of time to respond to the two pending motions to

reconsider. Respondent ILl filed a response in opposition to

petitioners’ motion on November 3, 1993. Petitioners note that

the City of Hoopeston’s motion to reconsider was filed on October

25, 1993, and that ILl’s motion was filed on October 27, 1993.

Petitioners state that they wish to file a consolidated response

to both motions, and note that the current due date for such a

response would be November 8, 1993. Petitioners request an

extension of time until November 19, 1993 to respond to the two

motions to reconsider. The motion for extension of time is

granted, and petitioners’ response is now due on November 19,

1993. No further extensions will be granted.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

I, Dorothy H. Gunn, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control

Board, hereby cert that the above order was adopted on the

~-~~--

day of

~e-r~--i~-’--’,

1993, by a~vote of ~ —0.

~Dorothy N. Gq~’in, Clerk

Illinois Po~9tt1tion Control Board

1

The Board notes that petitioners do not contend that

ILl failed to serve the motion on them.