THIS FILING SUBMITTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
JOHN AND LINDA MARACIC,
)
)
Complainant,
)
)
v.
)
PCB No. 05-212
)
(Enforcement – Noise)
TNT LOGISTICS NORTH AMERICA
)
INC.,
)
)
Respondent.
)
NOTICE OF FILING
TO:
Ms. Dorothy M. Gunn
Bradley P. Halloran, Esq.
Clerk of the Board
Hearing Officer
Illinois Pollution Control Board
Illinois Pollution Control Board
100 West Randolph Street
100 West Randolph Street
Suite 11-500
Suite 11-500
Chicago, Illinois 60601
Chicago, Illinois 60601
(VIA FIRST CLASS MAIL)
(VIA FIRST CLASS MAIL)
(PERSONS ON ATTACHED SERVICE LIST)
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that I have today filed with the Office of the Clerk of
the Illinois Pollution Control Board
RESPONDENT’S RESPONSE AND
OBJECTION TO COMPLAINANTS’ MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AN
AMENDED COMPLAINT,
a copy of which is herewith served upon you.
Respectfully submitted,
TNT LOGISTICS NORTH
AMERICA INC.,
Respondent,
By:/s/ Thomas G. Safley
Dated: February 16, 2007
One of Its Attorneys
Edward W. Dwyer
Thomas G. Safley
Ryan E. Mohr
HODGE DWYER ZEMAN
3150 Roland Avenue
Post Office Box 5776
Springfield, Illinois 62705-5776
(217) 523-4900
Electronic Filing, Received, Clerk's Office, February 16, 2007
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Thomas G. Safley, the undersigned, hereby certify that I have served the
attached RESPONDENT’S RESPONSE AND OBJECTION TO COMPLAINANT’S
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AN AMENDED COMPLAINT upon:
Ms. Dorothy M. Gunn
Clerk of the Board
Illinois Pollution Control Board
100 West Randolph Street
Suite 11-500
Chicago, Illinois 60601
via electronic mail on February 16, 2007; and upon:
Bradley P. Halloran, Esq.
Hearing Officer
Illinois Pollution Control Board
100 West Randolph Street
Suite 11-500
Chicago, Illinois 60601
Mr. John Maracic
Ms. Linda Maracic
6850 S. Ridgeland Avenue
Monee, Illinois 60449
by depositing said documents in the United States Mail, postage prepaid, in Springfield,
Illinois on February 16, 2007.
/s/ Thomas G. Safley
Thomas G. Safley
TNTL:002/Fil/Maraci/NOF-COS – Response to Motion for Leave
Electronic Filing, Received, Clerk's Office, February 16, 2007
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
JOHN AND LINDA MARACIC,
)
)
Complainant,
)
)
v.
)
PCB No. 05-212
)
(Enforcement – Noise)
TNT LOGISTICS NORTH AMERICA
)
INC.,
)
)
Respondent.
)
RESPONDENT’S RESPONSE AND
OBJECTION TO COMPLAINANTS’ MOTION
FOR LEAVETO FILE AN AMENDED COMPLAINT
NOW COMES Respondent, TNT LOGISTICS NORTH AMERICA INC.
(“TNT”), by its attorneys, HODGE DWYER ZEMAN, and for its Response to
Complainants’ “Motion For Leave to File an Amended Complaint,” states as follows:
I.
INTRODUCTION
1.
On January 3, 2007, in PCB 05-212 and PCB 05-213, and on January 4,
2007, in PCB 05-216 and PCB 05-217, Complainants filed documents purporting to be
“Amended Complaints” with the Illinois Pollution Control Board (hereinafter the
“Board”).
2.
On January 16, 2007, Respondent filed its objections and moved the
Board to dismiss these filings, as well as Complainants’ original Complaints, by filing its
“Objection to Complainants’ “Amended Complaint,” Motion to Dismiss Complaint as
Originally Filed, and Alternative Motion for Reversal of Hearing Officer’s Order”
(hereinafter “Motion to Dismiss”).
3.
Complainants failed to respond to the Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss
within the time provided by the Board’s rules, however, during the February 1, 2007
Electronic Filing, Received, Clerk's Office, February 16, 2007
2
status conference it was agreed that the Complainants’ deadline to respond would be
extended to February 13, 2007.
4.
On February 12, 2007, Complainants filed a document entitled, “Motion
For Leave to File an Amended Complaint” (hereinafter “Motion for Leave”) with the
Board.
II.
TNT’S RESPONSE AND OBJECTION TO COMPLAINANTS’ MOTION.
5.
TNT construes the Motion for Leave to be Complainants’ attempt to cure
one of the defects identified by TNT in its Motion to Dismiss; specifically, that
Complainants attempted to file an amended complaint without first seeking leave of the
Board pursuant to 35 Ill. Admin. Code § 103.206(d). See TNT’s Motion to Dismiss.
6.
Regardless, Complainants’ Motion for Leave does not even attempt to
cure any other deficiency identified by TNT’s Motion to Dismiss.
7.
Most importantly, TNT moved the Board to dismiss this matter on the
basis that the Board is no longer able to grant the relief sought by the Complainants.
8.
Specifically, as stated in the Motion to Dismiss and as attested to in the
Supplemental Affidavit filed with the Board on February 5, 2007, TNT no longer leases
or operates the facility located at 28500 Ridgeland, Monee, Illinois (hereinafter the
“Facility”); likewise, TNT does not have any authority or control over the operations of
the Facility.
9.
Complainants’ Motion for Leave seems to indicate that the Complainants
believes the operational change to be a name change only; however, Complainants has
presented no evidence that would support such implication.
Electronic Filing, Received, Clerk's Office, February 16, 2007
3
10.
In fact, this operational change is not merely a name change, TNT and the
new operator of the Facility are not related in any way. This specific issue has been
addressed in TNT’s Motion to Dismiss as discussed supra.
11.
The Complainants in this matter are seeking a cease and desist order; that
is, the “Amended Complaint” requests that the Board “stop the noise” from the Facility.
“Amended Complaint” at ¶9.
12.
Given that TNT no longer operates nor controls operations at the Facility,
TNT would not have the authority or ability to take any actions in response to any cease
and desist order issued by the Board in this matter, should the Board find such relief
necessary.
13.
As the Board does not have authority to grant the requested relief thus this
matter should be dismissed. See, James M. Tonne and Jeanine F. Tonne v. Leamington
Foods, PCB 93-044, at p. 2 (Ill.Pol.Control.Bd. April 21, 1994). See also, 35 Ill. Admin.
Code § 101.200; Beers, PCB 04-204 (Ill.Pol.Control.Bd. July 22, 2004).
III.
CONCLUSION
14.
As stated above, neither the Complainants’ Motion for Leave to File nor
its Amended Complaint affect the grounds on which TNT has sought dismissal of this
matter. The issue remains that the relief that Complainants seek against TNT cannot be
granted in this case, and therefore Complainants’ claims against TNT should be
dismissed.
Electronic Filing, Received, Clerk's Office, February 16, 2007
4
WHEREFORE, Respondent, TNT LOGISTICS NORTH AMERICA INC.,
respectfully responds and objects to Complainants’ “Motion For Leave to File an
Amended Complaint.” TNT prays that the Board deny Complaints’ Motion and grant
TNT’s Motion to Dismiss currently pending before the Board. Finally, TNT moves the
Board to grant TNT all other relief just and proper in the premises.
Respectfully submitted,
TNT LOGISTICS NORTH AMERICA INC.,
Respondent,
By: /s/ Thomas G. Safley
One of Its Attorneys
Dated: February 16, 2007
Edward W. Dwyer
Thomas G. Safley
Ryan E. Mohr
HODGE DWYER ZEMAN
3150 Roland Avenue
Post Office Box 5776
Springfield, Illinois 62705-5776
(217) 523-4900
TNTL:002/Fil/PCB/Maracic/Response to Motion For Leave to File
Electronic Filing, Received, Clerk's Office, February 16, 2007