CRABB, District Judge.
This can be a civil action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. В§ 1983. Plaintiff The cash advance 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 legislation.
Whenever plaintiff filed its issue, it desired an initial injunction to avoid defendant from enforcing the ordinance that is allegedly unconstitutional.
Defendant reacted towards the movement and presented a movement for summary judgment at the exact same time, asserting that the appropriate axioms determining the motions had been exactly the same. Defendant asked that its movement for summary judgment be addressed without enabling plaintiff time for development, arguing that any breakthrough could be unneeded.