ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    Nay 20, 1993
    JOSEPH GUTESHA and
    )
    MILDRED SAMARDZIJA,
    )
    Complainants,
    V.
    )
    PCB 93-75
    (Enforcement)
    JOHNSON CONCRETE CO. and
    )
    ELMER LARSON, INC.,
    )
    Respondents.
    ORDER OF THE BOARD (by J. Theodore Meyer):
    This matter is before the Board on Joseph Gutesha and
    Mildred Samardzija’s (collectively, complainants) April 19, 1993
    formal complaint against Johnson Concrete Co. and Elmer Larson,
    Inc. (collectively, respondents). On May 4, 1993, respondents
    filed a motion to dismiss the complaint as frivolous, and a
    motion
    for leave to file that motion to dismiss. The motion for
    leave to file is granted. Complainants have not responded to the
    motion to dismiss.
    Respondents ask that the Board dismiss the complaint as
    frivolous. In support of their motion, respondents contend that
    the complaint fails to list any specific sections of the
    Environmental Protection Act (Act) (415 ILCS 5/1001 et seq.
    (1992)) which have been violated, and fails to list any acts
    which may constitute a violation. Respondents also maintain that
    the complaint requests relief that the Board does not have the
    authority to give, because the complaint asks for “compensation
    to maintain property for respect.” Respondents contend that
    the Board cannot grant compensation to individuals in disputes
    with their neighbors. Thus, respondents argue that the complaint
    should be dismissed as frivolous.
    Section 31(b) of the Act provides that when a citizen files
    a complaint with the Board, the Board shall schedule a hearing on
    that complaint, unless the Board finds that the complaint is
    “duplicitous or frivolous.” A complaint is duplicitous if it
    contains allegations identical or substantially similar to
    matters previously brought before the Board, or is identical or
    substantially similar to one brought in another forum.
    (Winnetkans Interested in Protecting the Environment (WIPE) v.
    Illinois Pollution Control Board (1st Dist. 1977), 55 Ill.App.3d
    375, 370 N.E.2d 1176, 13 Ill.Dec. 149; Brandle v. Ropp (June 13,
    1985), PCB 85—68, 64 PCB 263.) A complaint is frivolous if it is
    either legally or factually deficient, or fails to state a cause
    of action upon which relief can be granted. (WIPE, 370 N.E.2d at
    1180; Rocke v. Illinois Pollution Control Board (1st Dist. 1979),
    U ~-üGO5
    2
    78 Ill.App.3d 476, 397 N.E.2d 51, 33 Il1.Dec. 718; City of Des
    Plaines v. Metropolitan Sanitary District of Greater Chicago (1st
    Dist. 1978), 60 Ill.App.3d 514, 377 N.E.2d 114, 17 Ill.Dec. 924;
    see also In re Duplicitous or Frivolous Determination (June 8,
    1989), RES 89-2, 100 PCB 53.) Thus, we must determine if this
    complaint is legally or factually deficient, or fails to state a
    claim upon which relief can be granted.
    In the section of the complaint form which directs
    complainants to list specific sections of the Act or regulations
    which complainants allege are being violated, complainants state:
    Destroying will to be, Life, Maintenance of Property to
    respect sic, peace of at mind sic, mopping of
    Floors to dusting of same wind carrying particles of
    same shielding Eyes, General Health etc.
    (Complaint at paragraph 5.)
    The Board cannot find that this response states a cause of
    action. It does not refer to specific sections of the Act or the
    regulations, as is directed by the complaint form, nor does it
    even mention the Act or the regulations. Moreover, we do not
    believe that respondents are on sufficient notice to be able to
    clarify the scope of the complaint through discovery. There is
    simply no way for respondents or the Board to determine what
    provisions of the Act or the regulations are at issue. Thus, we
    find that the complaint is legally deficient, and thus frivolous.
    Additionally, in the section of the complaint form which
    asks what relief is sought, complainants state “We wish
    compensation to maintain property for respect and healthy living
    quarters for the future.” (Complaint at paragraph 9.) As the
    instructions on the form itself state, the Board cannot order a
    respondent to pay money damages to a complainant. Thus, this
    portion of the requested relief fails to ask for relief which the
    Board can grant. The Board does construe the complaint broadly,
    and thus interprets the second portion of the sentence (“healthy
    living quarters for the future”) as a request that respondents
    cease and desist from any violations of the Act. The Board can
    grant that type of relief.
    However, because the complaint fails to state a cause of
    action and is thus legally deficient, the Board must dismiss the
    complaint. We note that this dismissal does not bar complainants
    from ref iling a properly pleaded complaint. Respondents’ motion
    to dismiss is granted.
    IT IS SO ORDERED.
    R. Flemal abstains.
    01 ~2-06O6
    3
    Section 41 of the Environmental Protection Act (415 ILCS
    5/41) provides for the appeal of final Board orders. The Rules
    of the Supreme Court of Illinois establish filing requirements.
    (See also
    35 Ill.Adm.Code 101.246 “Motions for Reconsideration”.)
    I, Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
    Board, hereby certify that the above order was adopted on the
    ~?r~Z day of
    _______________,
    1993, by a vote of
    ~
    -1
    Dorothy M. 9~n, Clei~k
    /L~J
    Illinois Pq~A~utionControl Board

    Back to top