REC~VED
    BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    CLERK’S
    OFFICE
    WASTE MANAGEMENT OF
    )
    JUL 012005
    ILLINOIS,
    INC.,
    )
    Poll~tio~
    STATE
    OFControlILLINOISBoard
    Petitioner,
    )
    )
    PCBO4-186
    v.
    )
    (Pollution Control Facility
    )
    Siting Appeal)
    COUNTY BOARD OF KANKAKEE
    )
    COUNTY, ILLINOIS,
    )
    )
    Respondent.
    )
    WASTE MANAGEMENT
    OF ILLINOIS,
    INC.’S
    MOTION TO
    STRIKE KEITH L. RUNYON’S DUAL
    MOTIONS
    Petitioner WASTE MANAGEMENT OF ILLINOIS, INC. (“WMJIP’), by its attorneys,
    Pedersen & Houpt, moves to strike the Dual Motions ofKeith L. Runyon and in support thereof,
    states as follows:
    1.
    Keith L. Runyon is not a party to this appeal. On July 23, 2004, he requested that
    this Board grant him status as an intervenor. The Board denied his request in an order dated
    August 19, 2004. He was allowed, however, to submit oral or written statements at hearing, and
    file public comments or
    amicus curiae
    briefs. Waste Management of Illinois, Inc. v. County
    Board ofKankakee County, No. PCB 04-186, slip op. at 1-2 (August 19, 2004).
    2.
    In an order entered July 22, 2004, this Board denied similar requests to intervene
    by Merlin Karlock and Michael Watson. Waste Management of Illinois, Inc. v. County Board of
    Kankakee County, No. PCB 04-186, slip op. at 2 (July 22, 2004). Karlock and Watson, but not
    Runyon, appealed the orders to the Third District Appellate Court. Karlock, et al. v. Waste
    Management of Illinois, Inc., et a!., Nos. 3-04-00649 and 03-04-0655 (cons.) (3d Dist.) The
    appeals remain pending.
    415285v1
    3.
    Runyon now seeks leave to intervene a second time. However, the Board’s
    August 19 Order is res judicata as to Runyon and he may not bring his motion again. In
    addition, he has presented no law or facts sufficient to justify a change in the Board’s previous
    orders, or to justify intervention. He merely repeats assertions made in his amicus brief
    regarding the fundamental fairness of the County Board’s March 17, 2004 decision, and then
    offers unfounded or inaccurate claims about the County’s “total” abandonment of the March 17
    decision. None ofthese allegations are legally sufficient to establish a right to intervene.
    4.
    Given the lack of any legal basis for his “Dual Motions”, it appears that the
    purpose of this filing was to present matters outside the record for consideration by the Board,
    and then reargue his position based on these extra-record matters. This argument is improper
    and should be stricken.
    5.
    Runyon asserts numerous matters that are inaccurate or false. They include the
    statements contained in paragraph 1) (sic), (a)-(f) and 2) of his filing. Rational (sic) and
    Motions, p. 1-3. The attempt to introduce these extra-record matters in a motion to intervene is
    certainly improper, and should be rejected. The fact that the assertions are untrue compound this
    prejudice, and compels that theybe stricken.
    6.
    The Runyon’s Dual Motions are without any legal basis. The motion to intervene
    is barred by res judicata and the law ofthe case. Runyon is not a party in this appeal, and has no
    standing or authority to present a motidntó bar the CoOni~”sattorney from participating in this
    appeal. Finally, Runyon may not introduce extraneous matters into the record which are
    unfounded or untrue.
    415285v1
    WHEREFORE, WMII requests that this Board deny and strike Runyon’s Dual Motions
    and Rationale, and provide such other relief as the Board deems appropriate.
    WA E MANAGEMENT OF ILLINOIS, INC.
    By:~/One
    ofIts,,Aftorneys
    (.
    Donald J. Moran
    Pedersen & Houpt, P.C.
    161 North Clark Street, Suite 3100
    Chicago, Illinois 60601
    (312)641-6888
    415285v1

    Back to top