United States Of America District Court, W.D. Wisconsin.
Whenever plaintiff filed its issue, it desired an initial injunction to stop defendant from enforcing the ordinance that is allegedly unconstitutional. Defendant responded to your movement and presented a movement for summary judgment at the time that is same asserting that the appropriate axioms determining the motions were exactly the same. Defendant asked that its movement for summary judgment be addressed without enabling plaintiff time for finding, arguing that any finding could be unneeded. We agreed that development will never help plaintiff (because legislative choices are “not at the mercy of courtroom factfinding that will be centered on logical conjecture unsupported by proof or empirical information, and offered its counsel a way to advise the court whether he desired the opportunity for extra briefing; he penned towards the court on August 12, 2004, to express that additional briefing wouldn’t be necessary and therefore the court should check out determine the movement.
We conclude that defendant’s motion for summary judgment needs to be awarded because plaintiff cannot show that defendant lacked any basis that is rational legislating the nighttime closing of pay day loan stores. Without such a showing, plaintiff cannot be successful on its declare that it absolutely was rejected substantive due process that it was denied equal protection or. The clear wording of this ordinance defeats plaintiff’s declare that it is unconstitutionally vague. Finally, plaintiff does not have any help because of its contention that the ordinance is preempted by state legislation.