ORDERS:
ORDER
This matter is before me upon the motion of Petitioner, Carolina Water Services, Inc., Lexington County, for summary
judgment, filed with the Administrative Law Judge Division on October 18, 1999. Summary judgment is appropriate when it
is clear that there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Baird
v. Charleston County, 333 S.C. 519, 511 S.E.2d 69 (1999). See also Wells v. City of Lynchburg, 331 S.C. 296, 501 S.E.2d
746 (Ct. App. 1998) (court should grant a motion for summary judgment when the pleadings, depositions, answers to
interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with affidavits, if any, show there is no genuine issue as to any material fact
and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law). In this case, the pleadings, depositions, and affidavits on
file do not establish that the Petitioner is entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law. Moreover, if the Petitioner's
motion were granted, the relief would only be effective until the temporary certification granted by the Central Midlands
COG expires (on or about November 23, 1999). After the expiration of the temporary certification, Petitioner's permit
application would once again fail to conform to the Section 208 plan, requiring the institution of yet another contested case
on the same set of facts and circumstances as those presented here. Accordingly, Petitioner's motion for summary judgment
must be denied.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
___________________________________
Ralph King Anderson, III
Administrative Law Judge
Columbia, South Carolina
November 19, 1999 |
