City files motion to stay in alluvial lawsuit

City files motion to stay in alluvial lawsuit


Enquirer~Democrat managing editor

Earlier this month, Judge April Troemper ruled against the city of Carlinville in a lawsuit filed related to the creation of the Illinois Alluvial Regional Water Company.

Since that time, the city’s legal counsel has filed a motion to stay pending appeal.

This action took place July 16 and is awaiting a decision from Troemper.

The city, represented by John Gabala of Giffin, Winning, Cohen & Bodewes, P.C., along with attorney Dan O’Brien, filed a four-page request which lays out eight points.

The eighth point states “a stay is appropriate in this case because it will (a) reduce the uncertainty of (the) defendant’s ability to participate in alluvial, (b) allow alluvial to continue as a valid Illinois corporation, and (c) avoid and prevent unnecessary and unfortunate (i) disruption to the financial positive of (the) defendant, (ii) interference with defendant’s contractual obligations, (iii) risk to the safety of the public water supply and (iv) disruption to (the) defendant’s two-thousand, nine-hundreed and twenty-six customers while the appeal is pending.”

The plaintiff in the lawsuit, miscellaneous remedies filing no. 92 from 2019, is Camile Brotze and Wayne Brotze, with Jacob Smallhorn serving as the attorney.

In its official response to defendant’s motion for stay pending approval, filed July 20, Smallhorn presents 45 points over seven pages, which are organized into six arguments.

Smallhorn argues the defendant’s motion for stay “does not  have any exhibits attached to it, nor does the motion for stay provide any additional information to flesh out the reasons why a stay is necessary under the circumstances.”

In addition, the plaintiff’s attorney claims that “nowhere in its motion for stay has the defendant made any allegation that it has a likelihood of success on appeal.”

Later, Smallhorn argues that the stay “provides the court with absolutely no information helpful to the court in determining whether or not a hardship will result to third parties inf a stay is not granted.”

The point is made that alluvial’s continued operation is not a concern of the court and the “defendant provides no explanation regarding how the court’s order would affect alluvial’s ability to continue its operations.”

If a stay is granted, Smallhorn argued, “it would be a benefit to alluvial in its continued expenditure of money from defendant’s grants, and at the expense of the public who should not be subjected to the continued expense of taxpayer funds on a void corporation.”