ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    June 20, 1991
    CHARLES AND SENORIA BROWN
    )
    d/b/a C & S AUTO PLAZA, NORTH
    )
    END PLAZA SALES & SERVICE,
    )
    INC., AND CWI, INC.,
    )
    Petitioner,
    )
    PCB 91—64
    )
    (Underground Storage Tank
    )
    Fund Reimbursement Determination)
    )
    ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
    )
    PROTECTION AGENCY,
    )
    Respondent.
    ORDER OF THE
    BOARD
    (by J.C. Marlin):
    This action was initiated by the filing with the Board on
    April 11, 1991 of a petition for review of an Illinois
    Environmental Protection Agency (Agency) underground storage tank
    (UST) fund determination pursuant to Section 22.18(b)(g) of the
    Illinois Environmental Protection Act (Act), Ill. Rev. Stat.
    1989, ch. lllL par. 1001 et seq. The petition was not
    accompanied by an appearance. However, the petition was signed
    by an attorney who stated that he represented all named
    petitioners: Charles and Senoria Brown d/b/a C&S Auto Plaza (the
    Browns), North End Plaza Sales and Service, Inc. (North End) and
    CWI, Inc. (CWI).
    On May 3, 1991 the Agency filed a motion, accompanied by
    affidavits, to dismiss this action; the Agency filed a supplement
    to the motion on May 6, 1991. On May 13, 1991, a motion
    t’retraxit” (dated May 9, 1991) was filed on behalf of the Browns
    and North End by Black and Associates, Ltd.
    As the Agency states in its motion, which as earlier stated
    is supported by affidavits and other documents, the Browns are
    the owners and operators of the CYSTs at issue here, North End is
    a contractor who performed services for the Browns, and CWI is a
    subcontractor to North End.
    The essence of the May 3—6 and May 13 motions is that the
    Browns and North End had never retained the attorney who filed
    this action and had in no way authorized the filing of this
    action. All motions contained proper proofs of service on other
    parties.
    —2—
    On June 7, 1991, the attorney who filed the petition filed a
    “Withdrawal of Petition for Hearing’, supported by affidavit,
    stating that the petition had in fact been filed “with the full
    authority of all the listed Petitioners”. The filing goes on to
    detail the discussion held at a May 10, 1991 meeting between the
    listed petitioners and their various attorneys to resolve the
    ‘seemingly contradictory position which had been created by the
    filing of the May 3 & 131 pleadings”. The document relates that
    statements made by Agency personnel had convinced the Browns and
    North End not to proceed with the petition.
    On June 13, 1991, the Agency filed a response to the June 7
    withdrawal statement. This response, which was also supported by
    affidavit, notes that Agency personnel were not present at the
    May 10, 1991 meeting and takes strong exception to actions
    attributed to the Agency, asserting that the events did not
    occur.
    The Board is in no position to determine which of the two
    attorneys who purport to act on behalf of petitioners in fact
    have authority to do so. However, as the “motion retraxit” and
    withdrawal statement each seek the same resolution to this
    action, the Browns and North End are accordingly dismissed from
    this action at their request. Their motion “retraxit” further
    seeksentry of “an order de deceptione for costs, attorneys fees
    and any other damages and claims it deems equitable”. The motion
    is denied as beyond the Board’s jurisdiction.
    This would leaves CWI as the sole petitioner. Section
    22.18(b)(g) of the Act provides in part that:
    If the Agency refuses to reimburse or
    authorized only a partial reimbursement, the
    affected owner or operator may petition the
    Board for a hearing...
    By the statute’s terms, CWI has rio standing to bring this
    action, and is accordingly dismissed.
    As there are no petitioners remaining in this action who
    have desire and standing to pursue this action, this matter is
    dismissed and the docket is closed.
    Section 41 of the Environmental Protection Act, 111. Rev.
    Stat. 1987, ch. l1l~,par. 1041, provides for appeal of final
    Orders of the Board within 35 days. The Rules of the Supreme
    Court of Illinois establish filing requirements.
    IT IS SO ORDERED.
    —3,—
    I, Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
    Board, hereby certify t at the above Order was adopted on
    the ~,lZT day of
    _______________,
    1991, by a vote of
    7—c’.
    T~i~4 ~
    orothy M. ~
    Clerk
    Illinois P~lutionControl Board

    Back to top