The CITY OF
    CHICAGO,
    an Illinois
    municipal corporation.
    Complainant,
    PUIREX INDUSTRIES, INC.,
    a Delaware corporation,
    FEDERAL
    CHICAGO CORP.,
    an Illinois corporation, and
    FEDERAL DIE CASTING CO.,
    an Illinois corporation,
    RAYMOND E.
    CROSS, an individual,
    Respondents.
    )
    )
    )
    PCB___
    )
    )
    (Enforcement—Land, Citizens)
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    CLpP~’~
    OPT-~7-~F
    SEP
    0
    5
    2003
    STATE OF ILLINOIS
    Pol/utj0,,
    Contro/
    Board
    To: See attached service list
    NOTICE OF FILING
    PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that I have today filed with the Office of the Clerk of the
    Pollution Control Board the Motion to Consolidate of the City ofChicago, a copy ofwhich is
    herewith served upon you.
    Dated: September
    5,
    2003
    Diane M. Pezanoski
    Deputy Corporation Counsel
    George D. Theophilos
    Senior Counsel
    Charles A. King
    Assistant Corporation Counsel
    Chicago Department ofLaw
    30 N. LaSalle St.,
    Suite 900
    Chicago, IL 60602
    (312) 742-0330
    THE
    CITY OF CHICAGO
    Mara S. Georges
    Corporation Counse
    By:
    ant CorporatioiI~t1I~el
    BEFORE
    THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    )
    )
    v.
    SERVICE LIST
    Jeffrey M.
    Smith
    19782 MacArthur Blvd., Suite 260
    Irvine, CA 92612
    Authorized agent ofPurex Industries, Inc.
    served via Federal Express courier service
    United States Corporation Company
    2711
    Centerville Rd., Suite 400
    Wilmington,
    DE
    19808
    Registered agent ofPurex Industries, Inc.
    served via Federal Express courier service
    Robert L. Graham
    Bill
    S. Forcade
    Steven M. Siros
    Jason E.
    Yearout
    Jenner & Block
    One IBM Plaza
    Chicago, IL 60611
    Counsel ofrecordfor Purex Industries,
    Inc.,
    in PCB 03-55
    Served viafirst class
    US.
    Mail
    Cary R. Penman
    Shorge K.
    Sato
    Latham &
    Watkins
    5800
    Sears Tower
    233
    South Wacker Drive
    Chicago, Illinois 60606
    Attorneys
    and agentsfor all other
    respondents
    served via messenger
    Francis A. Citera
    Daniel T.
    Fahner
    Greenberg Traurig, P.C.
    77
    W. Wacker Dr., Suite 2500
    Chicago, IL
    60601
    Craig V. Richardson
    Christopher J. Neumann
    Greenberg Traurig, L.L.P.
    1200
    Seventeenth St., 24th Floor
    Denver,
    CO 80202
    Counsel ofrecordfor 2222 Elston LLC
    in PCB 03-55
    served viafirst class
    US. Mail
    CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
    I, Charles A.
    King,
    an attorney, certify that I have served the attached
    Motion to
    Consolidate
    upon the persons
    listed above in the method indicated on September
    5,
    2003.
    BEFORE THE
    ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    CLERK’S
    OPF’CF
    The CITY OF CHICAGO,
    )
    SEP
    0
    5
    2003
    an Illinois municipal corporation.
    )
    STATE
    O~
    ILLINOIS
    P01/ut
    ion
    Control Board
    Complainant,
    )
    v.
    )
    PCB
    ____
    )
    PUREX INDUSTRIES, INC.,
    )
    (Enforcement—Land, Citizens)
    a Delaware corporation,
    )
    FEDERAL CHICAGO CORP.,
    )
    an
    Illinois corporation,
    and
    )
    FEDERAL DIE CASTING CO.,
    )
    an Illinois corporation,
    )
    RAYMOND E.
    CROSS, an individual.
    )
    )
    Respondents.
    )
    MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE
    The City of Chicago (“City”), by its attorney, Mara S. Georges, Corporation Counsel,
    moves pursuant to Section
    101.406 ofthe Board’s procedural rules
    (35
    Ill. Adm.
    Code
    101.406)
    that the Board consolidate the above-captioned proceeding with pending proceeding 2222 Elston
    LLC v.
    Purex Industries, Inc., PCB 03-5
    5,
    for the purposes of hearing and decision.
    The complainant in PCB 03-55
    seeks recovery of costs incurred conducting remedial
    activities
    at a site in Chicago, Cook County, Illinois,
    to address contamination resulting from the
    respondents’
    alleged violations ofthe Environmental Protection Act, 415
    ILCS
    5.
    The City has
    also incurred costs to remediate contamination at and around the same site.
    The City previously
    sought to
    intervene in PCB 03-55 as an additional plaintiff.
    In its order denying the City’s
    motion,
    the Board noted,
    Today’s ruling does not preclude the City from filing its own
    complaint to seek
    reimbursement for costs incurred involving the
    site. If the City files its own complaint, consolidating the two
    actions may be
    appropriate.
    2222 Elston LLC v. Purex Industries,
    jpc~,PCB 03-55 (January 23, 2003), slip op. at 2.
    The City filed the complaint contemplated in the foregoing quote to commence the above-
    captioned proceeding.
    For the following reasons, the City submits that consolidation ofthese
    two proceedings is
    indeed appropriate:
    1.
    Section 101.406 of the Board’s procedural rules provides:
    The Board, upon the motion ofany party or upon its own motion,
    may consolidate two or more proceedings for the purpose of
    hearing or decision or both. The Board will consolidate the
    proceedings if consolidation is in the interest of convenient,
    expeditious, and complete determination of claims, and if
    consolidation would not cause material prejudice
    to any party. The
    Board will not
    consolidate proceedings where the burdens ofproof
    vary.
    35 Ill.
    Adm. Code
    101.406.
    2.
    The above-captioned proceeding and PCB
    03-55
    involve the same site, the same
    conditions,
    and many ofthe same events and transactions.
    3.
    The City anticipates
    that the hearings in these two proceedings will involve much
    ofthe same evidence, including at least some ofthe same witnesses.
    4.
    At present, litigation in
    PCB 03-55
    is still at a relatively early stage.
    The
    respondents only very recently filed their answers to the complaint,
    and pleading is not even
    complete yet, inasmuch as under the hearing officer’s order ofAugust 26, 2003, the complainant
    has until
    September 22, 2003, to respond to affirmative defenses.
    Under the schedule proposed
    by the parties and accepted by the hearing officer in his order of August 26, 2003, the parties may
    seek leave to
    add additional parties until
    December 15, 2003, and fact discovery will continue
    until June
    18, 2004.
    So, consolidating cases at this point should not result in any delay in
    proceedings in PCB 03-5
    5,
    or prejudice any party to that proceeding.
    2
    5.
    In the interest of complete determination of claims, the City submits that it is
    preferable for the Board to have all
    parties and all claims involving the respondents’
    activities at
    the
    site before it when fashioning a remedy for violations.
    6.
    Burdens ofproofdo not vary between the above-captioned proceeding
    and
    PCB
    03-55.
    WHEREFORE, the City requests that the Board adopt an order pursuant to
    35 Iii. Adm.
    Code
    101.406 consolidating the above-captioned proceeding with PCB
    03-55
    for all purposes.
    Respectfully submitted,
    THE CITY OF CHICAGO
    Mara
    S. Georges
    Corporation Counsel
    By:________________________
    Assistant Corporation Counsel
    Diane M. Pezanoski
    Deputy Corporation Counsel
    George D. Theophilos
    Senior Counsel
    Charles A. King
    Assistant Corporation Counsel
    Chicago Department ofLaw
    30 N. LaSalle St.,
    Suite 900
    Chicago, IL 60602
    (312) 742-0330
    3

    Back to top