BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
PEOPLE OF
THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,
)
by
LISA MADIGAN, Attorney
)
General
of the State of Illinois,
)
)
Complainant,
)
)
-vs-
)
)
)
EDWARD PRUIM, an individual, and
)
ROBERT PRUIM, an individual,
)
)
Respondents.
)
-------------------------------- )
)
)
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,
)
by
LISA MADIGAN, Attorney
)
General
of the State of Illinois,
)
)
Complainant,
)
)
-vs-
)
)
COMMUNITY LANDFILL COMPANY, INC.,
)
)"
Respondent.
)
PCB No.
04-207
PCB No. 97-193
(Consolidated)
(Enforcement)
to: Mr. Mark La Rose, La Rose
& Bosco
200 N. La Salle Street, #2810
Chicago,
IL 60601
Mr. Bradley P. Halloran
Hearing
Officer
Ms. Clarissa Cutler, Attorney at Law
155 N. Michigan, Suite 375
Chicago,
IL 60601
Illinois Pollution Control Board
100 W. Randolph, #2001
Chicago, IL 60601
NOTICE OF ELECTRONIC
FILING
PLEASE TAKE
NOTICE that we have today, December 10, 2009, filed with the Office
of the Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control Board, by electronic filing, Complainant's Response
to Respondents' Motion for
Stay Pending Appeal, a copy of which is attached and herewith
served upon you.
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, December 10, 2009
BY:
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS
ex rei.
LISA MADIGAN
Attorney General
of the
State of llinois .
Assistant Attorney General
Environmental Bureau
69
W. Washington St., #1800
Chicago, IL 60602
(312) 814-5388
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, December 10, 2009
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
PEOPLE OF
THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,
)
by
LISA MADIGAN, Attorney
)
General
of the State of Illinois,
)
Complainant,
-vs-
EDW ARD
PRUIM, an individual, and
ROBERT PRUIM, an individual,
Respondents.
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,
by LISA MADIGAN, Attorney
General
of the State of Illinois,
Complainant,
-vs-
Community Landfill Company, Inc.
Respondent.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
PCB No. 04-207
PCB
No. 97-193
(Consolidated)
(Enforcement -Land)
RESPONSE TO COMMUNITY LANDFILL COMPANY, EDWARD PRUIM,
AND ROBERT PRUIM'S MOTION TO STAY PENDING APPEAL
NOW COMES Complainant, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, byLISA
MADIGAN, Attorney General of the State of Illinois, and Responds to Community
L~mdfill
Company ("CLC"), Edward Pruim, and Robert Pruim's Motion to Stay Pending Appeal. For the
reasons set forth herein, Complainant requests that the Board deny the Respondents' request for a
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, December 10, 2009
----------------------------.
stay of the Board's Final Order.
I.
AN APPEAL BOND MUST BE PROVIDED IN THE AMOUNT OF THE CIVIL
PENALTY ASSESSED BY THE BOARD
Under
Supreme Court Rule 305(a), the Respondents are not entitled to a stay of the
judgment, unless they jointly file [with the Board]
"an appeal bond or other form of security."
Sup. Ct.
R.
305(a). A bond provides security to a judgment creditor that if the judgment is
affirmed, it will be paid that which is owed.
Estate of Hoellen,
367 Ill. App. 3d 240, 245 (15\
Dist. 2006).
The Respondents have not advised Complainant that any bond or other surety has been
provided to the Board
to secure collection of the $250,000.00 civil penalty. For this reason, the
Board should deny the Respondents' Motion to Stay.
II.
THE
RESPONDENTS' RIGHT TO APPEAL WILL NOT BE IMPAIRED BY
A
DENIAL OF THEIR REQUEST FOR A STAY
If the Board denies the requested stay, the Respondents are not prevented from continuing
with their appeal, because the denial
of a stay of judgment does not affect the Respondents' right
to appeal.
See,
e.g:
Jack Springs, Inc. v. Little,
50 Ill.2d 351, 355 (1972). The absence of a stay
merely allows the State to execute the underlying judgment,
if it so chooses. The Respondents
may forestall such execution simply by securing the judgment with a bond or other acceptable
surety. However, the State should not
be prevented from enforcing the Board's Final Order
without a guarantee that the Respondents' assets will not be dissipated or diverted during the
pendency
of an appeal.
Finally, in accordance with Supreme Court Rules 305(d) and 335(g), if denied a stay by
the Board, the Respondents may again request a stay from the Appellate Court.
It
is possible that
2
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, December 10, 2009
the Respondents will arrange an acceptable surety between the time of the Board's denial and the
filing
of any such request with the Court. Because the Board has extended the payment deadline
until January 5, 2010, the Respondents have more than enough time to arrange for an appeal
bond.
III.
CONCLUSION
Because the Respondents have failed to provide for a bond securing the award of civil
penalties, Complainant respectfully requests that the Board deny Respondents' Motion to Stay
Pending Appeal.
BY:
RESPECTFULL Y SUBMITTED
People of the State of Illinois
by
Lisa Madigan,
Attorney General
of the State of Illinois
Matthew
J. Dunn, Chief
Environmental Enforcement! Asbestos
Litigation Division
RoseMarie Cazeau, Chief
Envir nmental Bureau
rth
istop er ra
e nifer Tomas
ssistant Attorneys General
69 W. Washington Street, #
1800
Chicago, IL 60602
(312)814-5388
(312)814-0609
3
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, December 10, 2009
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, CHRISTOPHER GRANT, an attorney, do certify that I caused to be served this loth day
of December, 2009, the foregoing Complainant's Response for Motion to Stay Pending Appeal
and Notice
of Electronic Filing upon the persons listed on said Notice by electronic mail, and by
placing same in an envelope bearing sufficient postage with the
United States Postal Service
located at
100 W. Randolph, Chicago Illinois.
CHRISTOPHER GRANT
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, December 10, 2009
