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 liberties to equal security and due procedure and it is unconstitutionally obscure. In addition, plaintiff contends that the ordinance is preempted by state legislation.
Whenever plaintiff filed its issue, it desired an initial injunction to avoid defendant from enforcing the presumably unconstitutional ordinance.
Defendant reacted into 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 exactly the same. Defendant asked that its movement for summary judgment be addressed without enabling plaintiff time for finding, arguing that any breakthrough is unneeded. We agreed that breakthrough wouldn’t normally help plaintiff (because legislative choices are “not susceptible to courtroom factfinding and could be predicated 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 provided its counsel a way to advise the court whether he desired a chance for extra briefing; he had written to your court on August 12, 2004, to state that extra briefing wouldn’t be necessary and that the court should check out determine the movement.
We conclude that defendant’s movement for summary judgment needs to be awarded because plaintiff cannot show that defendant lacked any logical foundation for legislating the nighttime closing of pay day loan shops. Without this kind of showing, plaintiff cannot be successful on its declare that it had been rejected equal security or it was rejected substantive due procedure. The clear wording for the ordinance defeats plaintiff’s declare that it’s unconstitutionally obscure. Finally, plaintiff does not have any help because of its contention that the ordinance is preempted by state legislation.
For the true purpose of determining this movement, we find through the findings of reality proposed by the events associated with 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 business using its place that is principal of in Chicago, Illinois. Defendant City of Madison is just human body corporate and politic that will sue and start to become sued.
Plaintiff is just a monetary solutions business that runs five branches in Madison, Wisconsin. On November 7, 2003, it started a facility avant loans locations that is new 2722 East Washington Avenue. At the full time of enough time associated with the hearing from the movement for initial injunction, the facility was open each day each day, 7 days per week and had been the only real 24-hour company of the key in Madison.
Every one of plaintiff’s cash advance clients have actually checking reports and a percentage that is large of check cashing customers have actually bank records.
Plaintiff provides a wide range of solutions, including short-term certified loans referred to as “payday loans,” a foreign exchange and always check cashing operation, notary solutions, bill investing and facsimile and copy services. Plaintiff sells stamps, envelopes and coach passes and keeps A atm that is stand-alone in lobby.
*803 Plaintiff is certified because of the Wisconsin Department of finance institutions to create short-term certified loans. In a normal deal, a debtor presents a paycheck stub, picture recognition and a recently available bank declaration, completes that loan application and submits a post-dated check. Plaintiff completes a note along with other loan papers and makes particular disclosures to the consumer. It holds the post-dated check through to 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 this has come due. Plaintiff costs $22 for every $100 borrowed for the two-week licensed loan.