BEFORE THE ILLINOIS
POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
RECEIVED
CLERK’S OFFICE
GRAND
PIER CENTER LLC
)
nrr
AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL
)
2005
SPECIALTY LINES INSURANCE CO.
)
STATE OF ILLINOIS
as subrogee ofGRAND
PIER CENTER LLC
)
Pollution
Control
Board
)
Complainants,
)
)
PCB 2005-157
v.
)
(Enforcement)
)
RIVER EAST LLC
)
CHICAGO DOCK AND CANAL TRUST
)
CHICAGO DOCK AND CANAL COMPANY
)
KERR-McGEE CHEMICAL LLC
)
)
Respondents.
)
TO:
Frederick S. Mueller
Donald J. Moran
Bradley Halloran
Daniel C. Murray
Pedersen & Houpt
Hearing Officer
Garrett L. Boehm, Jr.
161 North Clark Street
Illinois Pollution
JOHNSON & BELL, LTD.
Suite 3100
Control Board
55 East Monroe Street
Chicago, IL 60601-3242
James R. Thompson
Suite 4100
Center
—
Suite 11-500
Chicago, IL 60603-5803
Chicago, IL 60601
NOTICE OF FILING
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on October
21, 2005,
we caused to be filed with the Illinois
Pollution Control Board in the James R. Thompson Center, Chicago, Illinois, TRONOX LLC’S
REPLY IN FURTHER SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION TO STRIKE CERTAIN
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES, copies of which are served upon you along with this notice.
Tronox LLC
By:___
of its att92~ys
Michael P. Connelly
Garrett C. Caner
Connelly Roberts & McGivney LLC
One North Franklin Street
Suite 1200
Chicago, Illinois 60606
Tele: (312) 251.9600
1:\.2470\040\Notice ofFiling -9
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS
POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
OCT 212005
GRAND PIER CENTER LLC,
)
STATE OFILLINOIC
AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL
)
Pollution Control Bo~d
SPECIALTY LINES INSURANCE CO.
)
as subrogee of Grand Pier Center LLC,
)
Complainants!
)
Counter-Complaint Respondents,
)
PCB 2005-157
(Enforcement)
)
RIVER EAST LLC,
)
CHICAGO DOCK AND CANAL TRUST,
)
CHICAGO DOCK AND CANAL COMPANY,
)
)
)
TRONOXLLC,
)
)
Respondent!
)
Counter-Complaint Complainant.)
)
TRONOX LLC’S REPLY IN FURTHER SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION TO
STRIKE CERTAIN AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
Respondent Tronox LLC (“Tronox”),’ in further support of its Motion to Strike
Certain Affirmative Defenses ofComplainants’ Grand Pier Center LLC and American
International Specialty Lines Insurance Co., as subrogee of Grand Pier Center LLC
(collectively,I.
Grand“GrandPier FailsPier”),to Pleadstates Factsas
follows:that2Support
Its Second through Sixth
Tronox LLC was formerly known as Kerr-McGee Chemical Company LLC. A
Notice of Name Change was filed with the Board on October 11, 2005.
2
Tronox LLC filed a combined Motion To Dismiss Complainants’ Counter-
Complaint And To Strike Complainants’ Affirmative Defenses. This Reply is in further
support of the Motion to Strike Complainants’ Affirmative Defenses.
Affirmative Defenses.
The allegations in Grand Pier’s pleadings are insufficient to support Grand Pier’s
second through sixth affirmative defenses. Consequently, Grand Pier has attempted in its
Response brief to introduce new, unplead allegations to augment its inadequate pleadings.
Grand Pier’s attempt to rely on new, unplead allegations underscores Grand Pier’s failure
to allege adequate facts in its actual pleadings. Moreover, even with the addition of new,
unplead allegations, Grand Pier still fails to allege facts sufficient to support its affirmative
defenses. Thus, the Board should strike the second through sixth ofGrand Pier’s
affirmative defenses, to wit, that Tronox acted as a volunteer, assumed the risk, waived a
right to contribution, acted with unclean hands, and acted negligently. ~
Grand Pier’s
Answer to Counter-Complaint, Affirmative Defenses and Counterclaim, at 7-8 (filed July
5,2005).
Grand Pier points to the allegations in paragraphs 16, 17, and 19 of its Complaint to
support the second through sixth ofits affirmative defenses. ~ Grand Pier’s Response to
Motion to Strike, at 2 (filed Oct. 4, 2005)! Grand Pier describes those paragraphs as
alleging “that Tronox performed removal actions at the Lindsay Light II and RV3 Sites in
accord with United States Environmental Protection Agency (“USEPA”) administrative
orders.” Id.
Grand Pier does not explain how obedience to an USEPA order indicates that a
party acted as a volunteer, assumed the risk, waived a right to contribution, acted with
unclean hands, or acted negligently. In fact, few prudent parties would defy USEPA’s
The pages containing paragraphs 16, 17, and 19 of Grand Pier’s Complaint are
attached hereto as Exhibit A.
2
unilateral administrative orders, regardless of the merits. The penalty for noncompliance is
a daily fine of $25,000. 42 U.S.C.
§ 9606(b)( 1)
.‘~
Because virtually no prudent party
chooses to disobey USEPA’s unilateral administrative orders, Grand Pier’s allegation that
Tronox obeyed USEPA’s unilateral orders does not support Grand Pier’s claim that Tronox
acted as volunteer, assumed the risk, waived a right to contribution, acted with unclean
hands, or acted negligently. Indeed, the allegations in paragraphs 16, 17, and 19 of Grand
Pier’s Complaint equally apply to Grand Pier and Tronox because Grand Pier, too, has
performed cleanup actions at the RV3 Site in accord with an USEPA order. Presumably,
Grand Pier does not concede that it acted as a volunteer, assumed the risk, waived a right
to contribution, acted with unclean hands, or acted negligently.
Grand Pier, perhaps cognizant that the allegations of its Complaint are insufficient,
introduces allegations that do not appear in its pleadings. For example, Grand Pier alleges
that Tronox has not sought reimbursement from USEPA for its costs. ~
Grand Pier’s
Response to Motion to Strike, at 2. Grand Pier also alleges that Tronox “only belatedly
stepped-up to” perform the USEPA-ordered cleanup. Id. Grand Pier’s reliance upon these
unplead allegations highlights its failure to adequately plead its affirmative defenses.
Furthermore, Grand Pier proceeds to draw the improper inference from its
allegation that Tronox has not sought reimbursement of costs from USEPA’s
Environmental Appeals Board (“EAB”). Grand Pier argues that one may conclude from
this allegation that Tronox has conceded that it is responsible for thorium contamination at
The penalty scheme is so harsh that it has come under a credible constitutional due
process challenge in the United States District Court ofthe District of Columbia. ~
General Electric Comnany v. Johnson, 362 F.Supp.2d 327 (D.D.C. 2005) (denying
USEPA’s motion for summary judgment).
3
the RV3 Site. However, a decision not to commence a reimbursement action before the
EAB is not a concession of liability. As Grand Pier is well aware, the burden ofproof in
EAB proceedings is on the party petitioning for reimbursement, and relief is very rare.
Indeed, not a single petition for reimbursement met with any success for the first eleven
years that EAB heard petitions, and few petitions have met with success since then.5 Grand
Pier itself has not sought reimbursement for the costs that it has incurred for its on-site
cleanup activities at the RV3 Site. Presumably, Grand Pier does not contend that its
decision is a concession. To be sure, Grand Pier sought reimbursement with respect to its
off-site cleanup of thorium contamination adjacent to the RV3 Site, but its claim predictably
was denied in a preliminary decision.
$~
Preliminary Decision of Environmental Appeals
Board, at 50 (Aug. 17, 2005) (finding that Grand Pier is liable for off-site thorium
contamination as well as on-site thorium contamination in connection with the RV3 Site)
~6
In a sign that Grand Pier has come to recognize the rarity of relief from EAB, counsel for
Grand Pier stated in a letter to the EAB that it was “not providing comments upon the
Preliminary Decision” because “we understand that the EAB has never reversed a
Preliminary Decision.” Letter from Johnson & Bell to EAB (Sept. 16, 2005), attached
hereto as Exhibit C.
Thus, the Board should strike affirmative defenses two through six on the ground
that Grand Pier has failed to allege facts indicating that Tronox acted as a volunteer,
assumed the risk, waived a right to contribution, acted with unclean hands, or acted
In 1997, eleven years after the enactment of 42 U.S.C.
§
9606(b), EPA approved
the first-ever settlement of a petition for reimbursement, reimbursing approximately six
percent of costs.
6
The cited portion ofEAB’s Preliminary Decision is attached hereto as Exhibit B.
4
negligently.
II.
Grand Pier Fails to Plead Facts that Support its Seventh and Eighth
Affirmative Defenses.
Tronox, in its motion to strike Grand Pier’s affirmative defenses, argued
that Grand Pier failed to plead sufficient facts to support its seventh and eighth affirmative
defenses. Grand Pier, in its response to Tronox’s motion, has shown that its seventh and
eighth affirmative defenses are not proper affirmative defenses to begin with. Thus, the
Board should strike them as inadequately plead.
Grand Pier has explained that its seventh affirmative defense
--
that the
“alleged acts or omissions of Grand Pier are not the proximate cause of any alleged
environmental contamination and resultant damages” ~
--
is premised on its allegations that
Grand Pier was an innocent purchaser of the RV3 Site and that it did not treat, store,
dispose or discharge thorium at the RV3 Site. See Grand Pier’s Response to Motion to
Strike, at 2. Those allegations, however, show that Grand Pier’s seventh affirmative
defense is a denial of, not an affirmative defense to, Tronox’s counterclaim. Tronox
claimed that Grand Pier proximately caused environmental contamination and damages by
removing the asphalt that had been safely shielding underground thorium deposits. fi~,
ç.~g..,Tronox’s Counter-Complaint ¶12(”Only by Grand Pier’s removal of the pavement
and excavationof the site for construction
. . .
was the public and the environment exposed
to the risks of thorium
)
(filed June 13,2005). Indeed, USEPA has indicated that
“when Grand Pier stripped the concrete off” and began construction activities, “that’s
what created the imminent and substantial engagement (sic) that the agency responded to.”
Grand Pier’s Answer to Counter-Complaint, Affirmative Defenses and
Counterclaim, at 6.
5
Transcript of Oral Argument before the EAB, at 44 (Petition No. CERCLA 106(b) 04-01)
(June 16, 2005), attached hereto as Exhibit D. Grand Pier’s seventh counterclaim,
however, denies, rather than gives color to, Tronox’s counterclaim. See Ferris Elevator
Co.. Inc. v. Neffco. Inc., 285 Ill.App.3d 350,
354,
674 N.E.2d 449,
452
(3d Dist. 1996)
(“The test for whether a defense is an affirmative defense which must be plead is whether
the defense gives color to the opposing party’s claim and then asserts new matter by which
the apparent right is defeated.”).
Likewise, Grand Pier has shown that its eighth affirmative defense
--
that
Tronox’s “alleged injuries or damages
...
were caused in whole or in substantial part by
the negligent acts and/or omissions of” Tronox8
--
is a denial of Tronox’s counterclaim and
not an affirmative defense. The allegations that Grand Pier identifies to support its eighth
affirmative defense fail to give color to Tronox’s claim that Grand Pier’s destruction of the
protective asphalt shield caused Tronox’s damages. ~ Grand Pier’s Response to Motion
to Strike, at 3 (identifying irrelevant allegations that concern only historical ownership of
the RV3 site by Chicago Dock and Canal Company at a time long before Grand Pier
damaged the protective asphalt shield that secured the thorium deposits).
III.
Grand
Pier Fails to Plead Facts that Support its Ninth Affirmative Defense.
Grand Pier also fails to allege sufficient facts to support its ninth affirmative
defense. Grand Pier, once again, attempts to rely upon newly introduced, unplead
allegations.
Grand Pier’s ninth affirmative defense
--
that Tronox failed to mitigate its
Grand Pier’s Answer to Counter-Complaint, Affirmative Defenses and
Counterclaim, at 8.
6
damages because it failed to warn Grand Pier of the underground thorium deposits on
Grand Pier’s property9
--
amounts to an argument that Grand Pier would have abstained
from its environmentally destructive actions if Tronox had told Grand Pier that there were
underground thorium deposits buried beneath Grand Pier’s RV3 Site. Grand Pier fails,
however, to allege in its pleadings that Tronox knew that thorium was beneath Grand Pier’s
property at the RV3 Site. Instead, Grand Pier attempts to augment its pleadings with a
new, unplead allegation that Tronox had inferential knowledge of the possibility that
underground thorium deposits were on Grand Pier’s property. $ç~Grand Pier’s Response
to Motion to Strike, at 3. Grand Pier’s reliance on this unplead allegation underscores the
inadequacy of Grand Pier’s actual pleading.
Furthermore, Grand Pier is a sophisticated party capable of inferring risk
from the adjacent multi-million dollar cleanup ofradioactive material taking place under a
public order of USEPA. Tronox could not have anticipated the inadequacy of Grand Pier’s
investigation of its own property and Grand Pier does not allege that Tronox knew that
Grand Pier was not investigating thorium deposits. Indeed, even USEPA has called
“surprising” Grand Pier’s failure to include sampling for thorium as part of its
environmental assessments. USEPA’s Comments Upon EAB’s Preliminary Decision, at 3
(Oct.
5,2005),
attached hereto as Exhibit E.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons above and those set forth in the Motion to Strike, Tronox
respectfully requests that the Board strike the second through ninth of Grand Pier’s
Grand Pier’s Answer to Counter-Complaint, Affirmative Defenses and
Counterclaim, at 9.
7
affirmative defenses with prejudice.
Michael P. Connelly
Garrett C Carter
Connelly Roberts & McGivney
LLC
One
North Franklin Street
Suite 1200
Chicago, Illinois 60606
(312) 251-9600
Peter J. Nickles
J.T. Smith II
Thomas E. Hogan
COVINGTON & BURLING
1201 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20004-2401
(202) 662-6000
Attorneys for Respondent Tronox LLC
Respectfully submitted,
TRONOX LLC
By:
8
13.
The principal ingredient in gaslight mantle manufacture is thorium. Thorium
occurs principally as the parent radionuclide thorium-232 in association with its daughter
products in a decay sequence known as the Thorium Decay Series. It is believed that the
principal source ofcontamination at the RV3 Site is the Thorium Decay Series.
14.
Between at least 1915 and 1933, Lindsay Light Company operated its
incandescent gaslight mantle manufacturing business at the Lindsay Light II Site, and arranged
for the disposal of hazardous substances at the Lindsay Light II Site, including the RV3 North
Columbus Drive pardel, the parcel pertinent to this citizen suit.
15.
Chicago Dock and Canal Company owned the RV3 North Columbus Drive parcel
of the Lindsay Light II Site at the time hazardous substances were disposed at the RV3 Site by
Lindsay Light Company.
Remediatiot, ofthe RV3 Site
16.
Through a series of administrative orders, the USEPA ordered Chicago Dock and
Canal Trust and Kerr-McGee Chemical LLC to remove the hazardous substances contamination
at the Lindsay Light II Site, and in an amendment, ordered River East LLC, Kerr-McGee
Chemical LLC and Grand Pier Center LLC to remove the hazardous substances contamination at
the RV3 North Columbus Drive Site.
17.
The rernediation work performed at the RV3 Site was conducted under the
Unilateral Administrative Order Docket Number V-W-96-C-353 issued June 6, 1996 (UAO) and
the First Amendment to that Order dated March 29, 2000.
The work was conducted in
accordance with the Work Plan for Site Radiation Survey and Excavation Soil Management
dated March 20, 2000 and approved b~the USEPA on March 23, 2000.
4
fl~T
L&J
18.
Thereafter, the USEPA required additional work, which was conducted in
accordance with the Sidewalk Reinediation Work Plan dated March 9, 2001 and approved by
USEPA on April 11,2001.
19.
The First Amendment to the UAO required Grand Pier, River East LLC, and
Kerr-McGee Chemical LLC to perform certain removal actions including, but not limited to, the
implementation of a Site Health and Safety Plan, the implementation of an air monitoring
program, the removal ofcontamination, and the disposal ofhazardous substances.
20.
Grand Pier Center LLC, as the then current owner of the RV3 Site, and AISLIC,
as subrogee of Grand Pier, performed and completed work at the RV3. Site in accordance with
the UAO, the UAO’s First Amendment, and the Work Plans.
21.
The removal activities under the Work Plan began on Apnl 4, 2000, and Grand
Pier Center LLC has been in compliance with the UAO since the UAO was issued to Grand Pier
Center LLC for the RV3 Site.
22.
A final Closure Report for the area bounded by North Columbus Drive, East
Grand Avenue, North St. Clair Street, and East Illinois Street was prepared by the Project
Coordinator, STS Consultants, Ltd., and submitted to the USEPA on July 2, 2001. Thereafter,
the Final Closure Report Addendum dated August 31, 2004 was submitted to USEPA.
23.
USEPA issued Letters ofCompletion on August 26, 2002 and on October 8,2004
for the work performed according to the approved Work Plans.
24.
Grand Pier and AISLIC incurred necessary response costs of approximately
$2,300,000 at the RV3 Site, and continue to incur additional costs ofresponse.
25.
Respondents are liable “persons” as that term is defined by Section 3.315 of the
Act (415 ILCS
5/3.315)
for all costs ofresponse at the RV3 Site.
5
Grand Pier Center, L.L.C.
CERCLA 5 106W) Petition No. 04-01
PRELIMINARY DECISION
August 17, 2005
Before Environmental Appeals Judges Edward E. Reich, Icathie
A. Stein, and Anna L. wolgast.
opinion of the Board by Judge Wolgast:
On December 13, 2004, Grand Pier Center, LLC (“Grand Pier”)
filed a petition seeking reimbursement of approximately $200,000
that Grand Pier states is a portion of the amount it expended in
complying with a unilateral administrative order issued by the
United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5 (the
“Region”)
.
The Region issued the unilateral administrative order
pursuant to section 106(a) of the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, as amended by
the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986, 42
U.S.C. §5 9601-9675 (“CERCLA”)
.‘
Grand Pier seeks reimbursement
Although the statute grants the President the authority to
issue such orders, the President has delegated this authority to
certain agencies, including the EPA.
See
Exec. Order No. 12,580
(Jan. 23, 1987), 52 Fed. Reg. 2923 (Jan. 29, 1987);
see also
Exec. Order No. 13,016 (Aug. 28, 1996), 61 Fed. Reg. 45,871
(1996)
DIBII
XII.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Board’s preliminary decision
is that Grand Pier Center, LLC, has failed to show that it is not
liable as an owner under CERCLA section 107(a) (1) for the
response costs incurred in removing thorium contamination from
the off-site sidewalk area. If, after reviewing the parties’
comments, the Board’s ultimate decision remains that Grand Pier
has failed to show that it is not liable, then the Board will
enter an order denying Grand Pier’s petition for reimbursement.
so
--~-—---~-—~-—--Attorneys
JOHNSON&BELLL~d
at Law---—
I,
)
Sune4lOO
- -‘
-:.J~
55 ~.sr
MON:OE
SIREn
CHrCAGO, II 60603-5803
TELEpHONE
(312) 372-0770
-.
IL
2:
FACsIMILE
(312) 372-9818
-
~IIE
A
lit
.,1pp:~ ~
9000
INDIANAPOUS
8t~.
September
16, 2005
‘M1,~
TELEPHONE:
HIGHLAND,
(219)IN
46322-9501923-5250
FACSIMILE:
(219) 923-6170
325
WASHINGTONSU!IESIREn
200
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
WAUKEGAN,
IL 60085-5572
Environmental Appeals Board
TELEPHoNE:
Arid Rios Building
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
WAW.JOHNSONANDRELL.COM
Washington, DC 20460
WErrER’S DIRECT 0t*i NUM~EE
Atm: Ms. Eurika Dun, Clerk ofthe Board
312/984-0281
mueiierI~è~hird,coiu
RE:
CERCLII 106(b) Petition No. 04-01
USEPI4 Preliminary Decision 08/1 7/05
Dear Ms. Dun:
We are in receipt of a copy of the LAB’s Perliminary Decision dated August 17, 2005
proposing to deny Grand Pier Center, LLC’s Petition for Reimbursement. We respectfully
disagree with the EAR’s Preliminary Decision, which is premised on the position that Grand Pier
Center, LLC is “jointly and severally” liable for response costs associated. with the entire
“facility”, even though the USEPA in its series offilings with the EAB did not articulate such an
argument.
Further, while we are of the opinion that the LAB should issue a final order granting
Grand Pier Center LLC’s Petition for Reimbursement, we have no doubt that comments to the
Preliminary Decision would not sway the EAB to reverse its Preliminary Decision. In this
respect, we understand that the LAB has never reversed a Preliminary Decision. As such, we are
not providing comments upon the Preliminary Decision.
Once the LAB issues a final drder, Grand Pier Center, LLC will proceed accordingly.
Very truly yours,
JOHNSON & BELL, LTD.
~Ctt~
Frederick S. Mueller
FSM/srnd
#1294458
fl~T
LU
£
ORIGINAL
svs
SC
BEFORE THE ENVIRONMENTAL APPEALS
BOARD
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D,C.
- x
IN THE MATTER OF:
Petition No.
GRAND PIER CENTER, LLC
: CERCLA lOGCb) 04-01
x
Thursday, June 16, 2005
Environmental Protection Agency
Courtroom 1152
1201 Constitution Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
The oral argument in the above-entitled
matter convened, pursuant to notice, at 10:00 a.m.
BEFORE:
ANNA L. WOLGAST, EDWARD E. REICH
and KATHIE A. STEIN
Environmental Appeals Judges
EXHIBIT
MILLER REPORTING Co., INC.
735
-
8TH
STREET,
5.5.
3
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20003
202 546-6666
st’s
I
2
APPEARANCES:
On behalf of the Petitioner:
DANIEL C. MURRAY, ESQ.
On behalf of the U.S. EPA, Region 5:
MARY FULGHUM, ESQ.
CATHLEEN MARTWICK, ESQ.
ALSO PRESENT:
FREDERICK S. MUELLER
Present with Counsel for Petitioner
•
EURIKA DURR, Clerk
Environmental Protection Agency
CONTENTS
ORAL ARGUMENT
PAGE
Daniel C. Murray, On behalf of the
Grand Pier Center, LLP
4
Mary Fulghum, On-behalf of the
Environmental Protection Agency
28
Rebuttal Argument by Daniel Murray
On behalf of the Grand Pier
Center, LLP
49
MILLER REPORTING CO., INC.
735
-
8TH sTREET, 8.5.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20003
(202) 546—6666
intended only to reflect, as Attachment 9, page 11 stated, that “for most of this the 20th
century
the study
site was part of a very
long
east-west city block without cross streets.
The
Columbus Drive
and
McClurg
Court extensions
were
only extended across the site during the
last decade.” Note that the “study site” referenced in Attachment 9 is
the
316 E.
Illinois,
River
East
site
immediately
east of the
Columbus
Drive extension.
The
Lindsay Light Company
did
not
own the 316 E.
Illinois Street
property
or the Grand Pier property. During the Lindsay Light
Company’s operation, however, that “very long east-west city block” encompassed both the
present-day Grand Pier property and the adjacent 316 E. Illinois property. The fact that the
properties were contiguous during the Lindsay Light Company’s operations was of particular
interest to U.S. EPA, Region 5 because of the likelihood that materials would have been
transferred between the two operating Lindsay Light Company facilities across the present-day
Grand Pier property. It also made more surprising the fact that Grand Pier’s environmental
assessments did not include sampling for thorium.
The Board’s Preliminary Decision at page 10,1. Background, B. Factual Background, 1.
Description of the Site, discusses the
history of the ownership of the property at issue, i.e. the
approximately 10’ wide by 46’ long by
8’ deep off-site sidewalk area for which Grand Pier
sought reimbursement. Although the property at issue was not owned by the Lindsay Light
Company, it is part of the facility (as defined by CERCLA) where Lindsay
Light Company
thorium wastes came to be
located. The only property that the Lindsay Light Company owned
was the Lindsay Light Building at 161 E. Grand. It should be clarified
that the property at issue
in this case is located in Chicago’s Streeterville neighborhood where the Lindsay Light Company
operated from 1904 until
thel93O’s and that the property at issue was once part ofa long east-
3
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Lynne Pudlo, a non-attorney, being first sworn on oath, depose and
state that
I
served the attached
TRONOX LLC’S REPLY IN FURTHER SUPPORT OF ITS
MOTION
TO
STRIKE CERTAIN
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
on the attorneys of
record by mailing true and correct copies in a properly addressed, sealed envelope with
appropriate postage affixed and depositing same in the U.S. mail located at One North
Franklin Street, Chicago, Illinois, before 5:00 p.m. on October 21, 2005.
Subscribed
and
sworn to
before me October
21, 2005.
~Puic
1:\2470\040\pleadings\cos
