THIS FILING SUBMITTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
    BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    VERNON and ELAINE ZOHFELD,
    )
    )
    Complainants,
    )
    )
    vs.
    )
    PCB No. 05-193
    )
    (Citizen’s Enforcement, Air)
    BOB DRAKE, WABASH VALLEY
    )
    SERVICE COMPANY, MICHAEL J.
    )
    PFISTER, NOAH D. HORTON, and
    )
    STEVE KINDER,
    )
    )
    Respondents.
    )
    NOTICE OF FILING
    TO:
    Ms. Dorothy M. Gunn
    Carol Webb, Esq.
    Clerk of the Board
    Hearing Officer
    Illinois Pollution Control Board
    Illinois Pollution Control Board
    100 West Randolph Street
    1021 North Grand Avenue East
    Suite 11-500
    Post Office Box 19274
    Chicago, Illinois 60601
    Springfield, Illinois 62794-9274
    (VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL)
    (VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL)
    PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that I have today filed with the Office of the Clerk of the
    Illinois Pollution Control Board
    NOAH D. HORTON’S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE
    DEFENSES TO COMPLAINANTS’ COMPLAINT
    on behalf of Respondents, Wabash Valley
    Service Company, Michael J. Pfister, Noah D. Horton and Steve Kinder, a copy of which is
    herewith served upon you.
    Respectfully submitted,
    WABASH VALLEY SERVICE COMPANY,
    MICHAEL J. PFISTER, NOAH D. HORTON,
    and STEVE KINDER,
    Respondents,
    Dated: March 24, 2006
    By:/s/ Thomas G. Safley
    One of Their Attorneys
    Thomas G. Safley
    Gale W. Newton
    HODGE DWYER ZEMAN
    3150 Roland Avenue
    Post Office Box 5776
    Springfield, Illinois 62705-5776
    (217) 523-4900
    ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, MARCH 24, 2006
    2
    CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
    I, Thomas G. Safley, the undersigned, certify that I have served the attached
    NOAH D. HORTON’S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO
    COMPLAINANTS’ COMPLAINT upon:
    Ms. Dorothy M. Gunn
    Clerk of the Board
    Illinois Pollution Control Board
    100 West Randolph Street
    Suite 11-500
    Chicago, Illinois 60601
    Carol Webb, Esq.
    Hearing Officer
    Illinois Pollution Control Board
    1021 North Grand Avenue East
    Post Office Box 19274
    Springfield, Illinois 62794-9274
    via electronic mail on March 24, 2006, and upon:
    Stephen F. Hedinger, Esq.
    Hedinger Law Office
    2601 South Fifth Street
    Springfield, Illinois 62703
    Thomas H. Bryan, Esq.
    Fine & Hatfield, P.C.
    520 N.W. Second Street
    Post Office Box 779
    Evansville, Indiana 47705-0779
    by depositing said documents in the United States Mail in Springfield, Illinois, postage
    prepaid, on March 24, 2006.
    /s/ Thomas G. Safley
    Thomas G. Safley
    WVSC:002/Fil/NOF-COS – Noah D. Horton’s Answer
    ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, MARCH 24, 2006
    BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    VERNON and ELAINE ZOHFELD,
    )
    )
    Complainants,
    )
    )
    vs.
    )
    PCB No. 05-193
    )
    (Citizen’s Enforcement, Air)
    BOB DRAKE, WABASH VALLEY
    )
    SERVICE COMPANY, MICHAEL J.
    )
    PFISTER, NOAH D. HORTON, and
    )
    STEVE KINDER,
    )
    )
    Respondents.
    )
    NOAH D. HORTON’S ANSWER AND
    AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO COMPLAINANTS’ COMPLAINT
    NOW COMES Respondent NOAH D. HORTON (“Horton”), by and through his
    attorneys, HODGE DWYER ZEMAN, and hereby files his Answer and Affirmative
    Defenses to Complainants’ Complaint in this matter stating as follows:
    1.
    Paragraph 1 of Complainants’ Complaint states a legal conclusion to
    which no response is required. To the extent that paragraph 1 states any factual
    allegation, Horton denies the same.
    2.
    Horton admits the allegations contained in paragraph 2 of Complainants’
    Complaint.
    3.
    Horton is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief
    regarding the truth of the allegations contained in paragraph 3 of Complainants’
    Complaint, and therefore, Horton denies the same.
    4.
    Horton admits the allegations contained in paragraph 4 of Complainants’
    Complaint.
    5.
    Horton admits the allegations contained in paragraph 5 of Complainants’
    Complaint.
    ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, MARCH 24, 2006
    2
    6.
    Horton admits the allegations in paragraph 6 of Complainants’ Complaint.
    7.
    Horton admits the allegations in paragraph 7 of Complainants’ Complaint.
    8.
    Horton denies the allegations in paragraph 8 of Complainants’ Complaint.
    9.
    Horton admits the allegations in paragraph 9 of Complainants’ Complaint.
    10.
    Horton admits the allegations in paragraph 10 of Complainants’
    Complaint.
    11.
    Horton admits the allegations in paragraph 11 of Complainants’
    Complaint.
    12.
    Horton admits the allegations in paragraph 12 of Complainants’
    Complaint to the extent that Pfister and Horton were and/or are employed by Wabash
    Valley Service Company to drive spray equipment and to apply agrichemicals at various
    times and locations. Horton further admits that Kinder was, and is, a supervisor of Pfister
    and Horton. With regard to the allegation in paragraph 12 that “Kinder . . . is and was
    responsible for directing their [i.e., Pfister’s and Horton’s] work, including with respect
    to when and how to apply the agrichemicals to Drake’s field,” this allegation states a
    legal conclusion to which no response is required. Horton denies all remaining
    allegations and inferences contained in paragraph 12 of Complainants’ Complaint.
    13.
    Horton denies the allegations in paragraph 13 of Complainants’
    Complaint.
    14.
    Horton denies the allegations in paragraph 14 of Complainants’
    Complaint.
    15.
    Horton denies the allegations in paragraph 15 of Complainants’
    Complaint.
    ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, MARCH 24, 2006
    3
    16.
    Horton denies the allegations in paragraph 16 of Complainants’
    Complaint.
    17.
    Horton denies the allegations in paragraph 17 of Complainants’
    Complaint.
    18.
    In response to paragraph 18 of Complainants’ Complaint, Horton denies
    that chemicals were “sprayed onto Zohfelds’ property.” The remainder of paragraph 18
    states a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent that paragraph
    18 states any further factual allegations, Horton denies the same.
    19.
    Horton denies the allegations in paragraph 19 of Complainants’
    Complaint.
    20.
    In response to paragraph 20 of Complainants’ Complaint, Horton denies
    that he or anyone “caus[ed] and/or allow[ed] agrichemicals to drift and cloud onto the
    adjacent property owned and occupied by the Zohfelds.” The remainder of paragraph 20
    states a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent that paragraph
    20 states any further factual allegations, Horton denies the same.
    WHEREFORE, the Respondent, NOAH D. HORTON, respectfully requests that
    the Illinois Pollution Control Board deny the relief sought by the Complainants,
    VERNON and ELAINE ZOHFELD.
    ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, MARCH 24, 2006
    4
    FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
    As his First Affirmative Defense to the Complainants’ Complaint, the
    Respondent, Horton, by his counsel, asserts that any claims in the Complainants’
    Complaint that refer to any incident, act, omission or any matter whatsoever that occurred
    before May 8, 2000, are barred by the applicable statute of limitations, and in support of
    this Affirmative Defense, Horton states as follows:
    1.
    Complainants’ claims alleging air pollution are not brought by the State.
    2.
    Claims under the Illinois Environmental Protection Act that are brought
    by individuals are subject to the five-year statute of limitations set forth in
    735 ILCS 5/13-205.
    3.
    With regard to any claim made by Complainants in their Complaint
    relating to any alleged incident, act, omission or any matter whatsoever that occurred
    before May 8, 2000, Complainants failed to bring such claim within the time limit
    provided by said statute of limitations.
    4.
    As a result of Complainants’ failure to file their claims referring to any
    incident, act, omission or any matter whatsoever that occurred before May 8, 2000,
    within the time limit provided by said statute of limitations, any such claims are barred.
    WHEREFORE, the Respondent, NOAH D. HORTON, respectfully requests that
    the Illinois Pollution Control Board find in his favor and against Complainants on this
    Affirmative Defense and award him all relief just and proper in the premises.
    ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, MARCH 24, 2006
    5
    SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
    Horton reserves the right to assert additional affirmative defenses upon
    completion of discovery.
    Respectfully submitted,
    NOAH D. HORTON,
    Respondent,
    By:/s/ Thomas G. Safley
    One of his Attorneys
    Dated: March 24, 2006
    Thomas G. Safley
    Gale W. Newton
    HODGE DWYER ZEMAN
    3150 Roland Avenue
    Post Office Box 5776
    Springfield, Illinois 62705-5776
    (217) 523-4900
    WVSC:002/Filings/Answer - Horton v02.doc
    ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, MARCH 24, 2006

    Back to top