ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
September 2, 2004
CITY OF KANKAKEE,
Petitioner,
v.
COUNTY OF KANKAKEE, COUNTY
BOARD OF KANKAKEE, and WASTE
MANAGEMENT OF ILLINOIS, INC.,
Respondents.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
PCB 03-125
(Third-Party Pollution Control Facility
Siting Appeal)
______________________________________
MERLIN KARLOCK,
Petitioner,
v.
COUNTY OF KANKAKEE, COUNTY
BOARD OF KANKAKEE, and WASTE
MANAGEMENT OF ILLINOIS, INC.,
Respondents.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
PCB 03-133
(Third-Party Pollution Control Facility
Siting Appeal)
______________________________________
MICHAEL WATSON,
Petitioner,
v.
COUNTY OF KANKAKEE, COUNTY
BOARD OF KANKAKEE, and WASTE
MANAGEMENT OF ILLINOIS, INC.,
Respondents.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
PCB 03-134
(Third-Party Pollution Control Facility
Siting Appeal)
______________________________________
2
KEITH RUNYON,
Petitioner,
v.
COUNTY OF KANKAKEE, COUNTY
BOARD OF KANKAKEE, and WASTE
MANAGEMENT OF ILLINOIS, INC.,
Respondents.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
PCB 03-135
(Third-Party Pollution Control Facility
Siting Appeal)
ORDER OF THE BOARD (by G.T. Girard):
On August 6, 2004, Waste Management of Illinois, Inc. (Waste Management) filed a
motion for relief from judgment with the Board. On August 20, 2004, Waste Management filed
a motion to schedule oral argument to consider the request for relief from judgment. Also on
August 20, 2004, petitioner Michael Watson filed a response in opposition to the motion for
relief from judgment. On August 24, 2004, petitioner Merlin Karlock filed a motion to file a
response
instanter
and a response to the motion for relief from judgment. The Board notes that
the time to respond to Waste Management’s motion for oral argument has not expired and will
not until September 3, 2004. However the Board finds that undue delay will result in this matter
if the Board delays a decision until the full response time elapsed to rule on the pending motions.
See
35 Ill. Am. Code 101.500(d). For the reasons discussed below, the Board declines to
consider the motions.
The Board has consistently held that if a matter is filed with the Appellate Court, the
Board does not consider substantive motions regarding the matter.
See
ESG Watts, Inc. v. IEPA,
PCB 01-139 (June 6, 2002). The Board’s position is consistent with that of the courts wherein
the courts have found that the filing of a notice of appeal causes the jurisdiction of the appellate
court to attach
instanter
and deprives the trial court of jurisdiction to modify its judgment or to
rule on matters of substance, which are the subject of appeal. Cain v. Sukkar, 167 Ill. App. 3d
941, 521 N.E.2d 1292, 1294 (4th Dist. 1988); citing, Montgomery Ward & Co. v. Wetzel, 98 Ill.
App. 3d 243, 423 N.E.2d 1170 (1st Dist. 1981).
This matter is pending before the Appellate Court, Third District, Docket No. 3-03-0924,
and Waste Management has filed a motion before the Appellate Court asking the court to remand
the case to the Board. However, at this time, the matter is before the Appellate Court and the
Board’s decision concerning jurisdiction is squarely before the court. The Board lacks
jurisdiction to modify the Board’s judgment or to rule on matters of substance, which are the
subject of appeal. Therefore, the Board declines to consider the motions.
3
IT IS SO ORDERED.
I, Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control Board, certify that the Board
adopted the above order on September 2, 2004, by a vote of 5-0.
Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk
Illinois Pollution Control Board