ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    September 4, 2003
     
    VOGUE TYRE & RUBBER COMPANY,
     
    Petitioner,
     
    v.
     
    ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
    PROTECTION AGENCY,
     
    Respondent.
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
     
     
     
     
    PCB 96-10
    (UST Appeal)
     
    ORDER OF THE BOARD (by G.T. Girard):
     
    Vogue Tyre & Rubber Company (Vogue Tyre) is seeking review of a June 15, 1995
    determination by the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (Agency) that the remediation at
    the site located at 1401 Golf Road, Skokie, Cook County was not subject to 35 Ill. Adm. Code
    731 and 732. On June 20, 2003, the Agency filed a motion for summary judgment. On July 30,
    2003, Vogue Tyre filed a response to the motion. For the reasons discussed below the Board
    finds that there are issues of material fact and the motion for summary judgment is denied.
     
    Summary judgment is appropriate when the pleadings, depositions, admissions on file,
    and affidavits disclose that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party
    is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Dowd & Dowd, Ltd. v. Gleason, 181 Ill. 2d 460, 483,
    693 N.E.2d 358, 370 (1998). In ruling on a motion for summary judgment, the Board “must
    consider the pleadings, depositions, and affidavits strictly against the movant and in favor of the
    opposing party.”
    Id
    . Summary judgment “is a drastic means of disposing of litigation,” and
    therefore it should be granted only when the movant’s right to the relief “is clear and free from
    doubt.”
    Id
    , citing Purtill v. Hess, 111 Ill. 2d 299, 240, 489 N.E.2d 867, 871 (1986). However, a
    party opposing a motion for summary judgment may not rest on its pleadings, but must “present
    a factual basis which would arguably entitle [it] to a judgment.” Gauthier v. Westfall, 266 Ill.
    App. 3d 213, 219, 639 N.E.2d 994, 999 (2d Dist. 1994).
     
    The record before the Board at this time includes the original petition filed by Vogue
    Tyre, the motion for summary judgment, and the response from Vogue Tyre. None of these
    pleadings are accompanied by affidavits supporting the facts included (
    see
    35 Ill. Adm. Code
    101.504) in the pleadings. Therefore, the Board denies the motion for summary judgment
    because, the record does not include sufficient facts for the Board to determine that the Agency
    is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The Board notes that the Agency may renew this
    motion after the Agency’s record is filed.
     
    2
     
    IT IS SO ORDERED.
     
    I, Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control Board, hereby certify that the
    Board adopted the above order on September 4, 2003, by a vote of 5-0.
     
     
     
    Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk
    Illinois Pollution Control Board
     

    Back to top