Usa District Court, W.D. Wisconsin.
Whenever plaintiff filed its issue, it desired a preliminary injunction to stop defendant from enforcing the ordinance that is allegedly unconstitutional. Defendant reacted towards the movement and presented a movement for summary judgment at the time that is same asserting that the appropriate concepts determining the motions had been the exact same. Defendant asked that its movement for summary judgment be addressed without enabling time that is plaintiff development, arguing that any development could be unneeded. We agreed that breakthrough wouldn’t normally help plaintiff (because legislative choices are “not at the mercy of courtroom factfinding and may even be centered on logical speculation unsupported by proof or empirical information, and offered its counsel a chance to advise the court whether he wanted the opportunity for extra briefing; he penned to your court on August 12, 2004, to state that extra briefing wouldn’t be necessary and therefore the court should go to decide the movement.
We conclude that defendant’s movement for summary judgment needs to be awarded because plaintiff cannot show that defendant lacked any rational foundation for legislating the nighttime closing of cash advance shops. (more…)