This really is an action that is civil pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff The pay day loan shop of Wisconsin contends that defendant City of Madison has enacted an ordinance that violates plaintiff’s legal rights to protection that is equal due procedure and it is unconstitutionally obscure. In addition, plaintiff contends that the ordinance is preempted by state law.
Whenever plaintiff filed its grievance, it desired an initial injunction to avoid defendant from enforcing the presumably unconstitutional ordinance.
Defendant reacted to your movement and presented a movement for summary judgment at the time that is same asserting that the appropriate maxims determining the motions had been the exact same. Defendant asked that its movement for summary judgment be addressed without enabling time that is plaintiff finding, arguing that any development could be unneeded. we agreed that finding will never help plaintiff (because legislative decisions are “not at the mercy of courtroom factfinding and can even be according to logical conjecture unsupported by proof or empirical data,” FCC v. Beach Communications, Inc., 508 U.S. 307, 315, 113 S. Ct. 2096, 124 L. Ed. 2d 211 (1993)), and provided its counsel a way to advise the court whether he desired a chance for extra briefing; he penned into the court on August 12, 2004, to state that extra briefing wouldn’t be necessary and therefore the court should check out decide the movement.
We conclude that defendant’s signaturetitleloans.com movement for summary judgment needs to be granted because plaintiff cannot show that defendant lacked any logical foundation for legislating the nighttime closing of cash advance shops.