ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    October 16, 1997
    ANTONIO D.H. NAM,
    Complainant,
    v.
    KIKON SUH,
    Respondent.
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    PCB 97-234
    (Enforcement - UST - Citizens)
    ORDER OF THE BOARD (by C.A. Manning):
    On September 18, 1997, complainant Antonio D.H. Nam (complainant) filed a request
    to file a motion for default judgment (motion) against respondent Kikon Suh (respondent).
    Complainant requests that he be allowed to file a motion for default judgment against
    respondent because complainant has been unable to effectuate service of the underlying
    complaint, filed with the Board on June 24, 1997, upon respondent. On September 30, 1997,
    complainant filed proof with the Board that he was able to serve respondent with an
    “Attempted Proof of Service and Request to File a Motion for Default Judgment” by certified
    mail. Complainant also indicated that “[a]s a courtesy” he would remail the complaint to
    respondent. For the following reasons, the Board denies complainant’s motion.
    Complainant’s motion alleges that although he has attempted to serve respondent by
    certified mail on two separate occasions, each time the complaint was returned unclaimed.
    Mot. at 1. Unclaimed means that two attempts were made by the United States Post Office to
    deliver the certified letter to respondent and that notice was placed at respondent’s residence
    that a letter was addressed to him which could be obtained at a local post office. If the letter is
    not picked up, it is returned to the sender unclaimed. Mot. at 1. The motion also states that
    complainant has hired a service to serve the complaint. Mot. at 2. The motion further alleges
    that respondent’s action can only be interpreted as willful and a deliberate attempt to avoid
    service. Mot. at 2. Due to respondent’s alleged actions, complainant requests that the Board
    accept complainant’s attempt to serve respondent as service and allow him to file a motion for
    a default judgment against respondent.
    Section 31(d) of the Environmental Protection Act (Act) (415 ILCS 5/31(d) (1996))
    provides that any person may file with the Board a complaint against any person allegedly
    violating the Act or any rules or regulations promulgated thereunder. Section 31(d) further
    directs that the complainant must immediately serve a copy of such complaint upon the person
    named in the complaint. 415 ILCS 5/31(d) (1996). The Board’s procedural rules establish the
    methods of service of the complaint, including personal service, registered mail, and certified
    mail. See 35 Ill. Adm. Code 101.141; see also 35 Ill. Adm. Code 103.123(a).
    2
    In the present case, complainant has not served respondent with the complaint as
    required by Section 31(d) of the Act and Board rules. Therefore, the Board denies
    complainant’s request that the Board accept complainant’s attempt to serve respondent as
    service and allow him to file a motion for default judgment against respondent. The Board
    also emphasizes that simply mailing the complaint to complainant by First Class United States
    mail does not meet the requirements of Section 103.123(a) of the Board’s rules. See 35 Ill.
    Adm. Code 103.123(a).
    The Board further notes that its procedural rules only provide for the entry of a default
    order for the failure of a party to appear at a hearing or for the failure to proceed as ordered
    by the Board. See 35 Ill. Adm. Code 103.220; see also Turner v. Edmiston (February 27,
    1992), PCB 91-147 (default order entered where respondent was served with the complaint,
    but failed to appear at hearing). Because neither circumstance is presented by the instant
    matter, the Board denies complainant’s motion on this basis as well. Moreover, complainant
    has failed to cite any authority to support the relief he requests at this time, nor has the Board
    independently found any. Additionally, unlike administrative citations, there is no time
    deadline in which the complaint in this citizen’s enforcement action must be served on
    respondent. See 415 ILCS 5/31.1(b) (1996). As complainant has indicated that he has hired a
    service to serve respondent, personal service may be effectuated in the future. If complainant
    cannot effectuate service on respondent by the methods outlined in Section 103.123(a),
    complainant may also move to serve respondent by publication. See People v. Cech (October
    2, 1997), PCB 97-138.
    IT IS SO ORDERED.
    I, Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control Board, hereby certify that
    the above order was adopted on the 16th day of October 1997, by a vote of 7-0.
    Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk
    Illinois Pollution Control Board

    Back to top