Pay day loan Store of Wisconsin v. City of Madison, 333 F. Supp. 2d 800 (W.D. Wis. 2004)
333 F. Supp. 2d 800 (2004)
The PAY DAY LOAN SHOP OF WISCONSIN, INC. d/b/a Madison’s Money Express, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF MADISON, Defendant.
Usa District Court, W.D. Wisconsin.
*801 *802 Joseph S. Goode, Milwaukee, WI, for Plaintiff.
Amanda J. Kaiser, Boardman, Suhr, Curry & Field, Madison, WI, for Defendant.
CRABB, District Judge.
This will be a civil action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. В§ 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 equal security and 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 stop defendant from enforcing the presumably unconstitutional ordinance. Defendant reacted into the movement and presented a motion for summary judgment at the time that is same asserting that the appropriate concepts determining the motions had been exactly the same. Defendant asked that its movement for summary judgment be addressed without allowing plaintiff time for breakthrough, 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 and might be centered on 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 offered its counsel a way to advise the court whether he desired a chance for extra briefing; he wrote towards the court on August 12, 2004, to state that extra briefing wouldn’t be necessary and that the court should go to determine the movement.
We conclude that defendant’s movement for summary judgment needs to be given because plaintiff cannot show that defendant lacked any basis that is rational legislating the nighttime closing of cash advance shops. Without such a showing, plaintiff cannot be successful on its declare that it had been rejected equal security or it was rejected substantive due procedure. The wording that is clear of ordinance defeats plaintiff’s declare that its unconstitutionally obscure. Finally, plaintiff does not have any help for the contention that the ordinance is preempted by state legislation.
For the true purpose of determining this motion, we find through the findings of reality proposed by the events relating to the 2 motions that the following facts are material and undisputed.
Plaintiff The cash advance shop of Wisconsin, Inc., d/b/a Madison’s money Express, is a Wisconsin company using its place that is principal of in Chicago, Illinois. Defendant City of Madison is a physical body corporate and politic that will sue and stay sued.
Plaintiff is a financial solutions business that runs five branches in Madison, Wisconsin. On November 7, 2003, it launched a new center at 2722 East Washington Avenue. At the time of the full time of the hearing regarding the movement for initial injunction, the facility was open a day a day, seven days per week and ended up being the actual only real 24-hour business of the key in Madison.
Most of plaintiff’s pay day loan customers have actually checking reports and a percentage that is large of check cashing customers have actually bank records. Plaintiff provides a wide range of services, including short-term certified loans referred to as «payday loans,» a currency trade and always check cashing procedure, notary solutions, bill investing and facsimile and copy services. Plaintiff sells stamps, envelopes and bus passes and keeps a stand-alone ATM in its lobby.
*803 Plaintiff is certified because of the Wisconsin Department of finance institutions which will make short-term certified loans. In a normal deal, a debtor presents a paycheck stub, picture recognition and a current bank declaration, completes that loan application and submits a post-dated check. Plaintiff completes a note as well as other loan papers and makes disclosures that are certain the client. It holds the post-dated check before the loan comes due and thereafter is applicable the check to cover from the loan unless the client will pay the mortgage in complete before it offers come due. Plaintiff fees $22 for every single $100 lent for a two-week loan that is licensed.
Plaintiff is certified by the Wisconsin Department of banking institutions to work a grouped community foreign exchange company.
in substitution for a charge, it agrees to cash payroll checks, insurance proceed checks, federal government checks along with other third-party checks.
When plaintiff dedicated to the East Washington center, it did therefore in expectation it will be in a position to operate twenty-four hours a day. When it started its preparation, the company had been a permitted usage under defendant’s zoning ordinance.
Plaintiff takes an amount of actions to steadfastly keep up safety for the procedure, including appropriate illumination, the usage of safes and hourly sweeps and surveillance of all of the of their shops. The illumination outside and inside the shop result in the parking great deal and shop available to see.
On November 4, 2003, defendant’s popular Council proposed a new ordinance, entitled «Hours of procedure for pay day loan companies.» Section (2) associated with the ordinance so long as no cash advance business might be available amongst the full hours of 9 pm and 6 am. At a public conference held on January 6, 2004, the payday loans Perry GA council voted to look at the ordinance with one dissenting vote. The mayor authorized the ordinance on 9, 2004 and it became effective fifteen days later january.
On or just around February 10, 2004, defendant agreed to not enforce the payday ordinance that is lending plaintiff’s foreign exchange company pending analysis the language regarding the ordinance and plaintiff consented never to make pay day loans throughout the prohibited hours. On February 24, 2004, Alderperson Markle introduced amendments towards the ordinance to broaden this is of cash advance company to add community foreign exchange organizations. The typical Council adopted the amendments may 18, 2004; the mayor authorized them may 24, 2004; and so they took impact on June 8, 2004.