Not what you're
looking for? Try an advanced search.
Buy This Entire Record For
HAMLYN v. ROCK ISLAND COUNTY METROPOLITAN
March 21, 1997
HOWARD D. HAMLYN, ON HIS OWN BEHALF AND ON BEHALF OF ALL THOSE SIMILARLY SITUATED, PLAINTIFF,
ROCK ISLAND COUNTY METROPOLITAN MASS TRANSIT DISTRICT, AND LOREN A. DUSSLIERE, CECIL L. HICKMAN, ROBERT E. JENSEN, LAURENCE W. LORENSEN, AND JOHN R. HUNT, IN THEIR INDIVIDUAL CAPACITIES, DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: McDADE, District Judge.
Before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion For Preliminary
Injunction [Doc. # 3]. For the following reasons, the motion is
tentatively denied without the need for an evidentiary hearing.
On February 20, 1997, Plaintiff Howard D. Hamlyn ("Hamlyn")
filed a Complaint on his own behalf and on behalf of all those
similarly situated alleging that Defendants had violated the ADA,
the Rehabilitation Act, and the Equal Protection Clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment by excluding persons with AIDS from its
Metro Link Reduced Fare Program. This program entitles eligible
recipients to pay a reduced fare on Metro Link buses. The
application form explicitly states: "WHO DOES NOT QUALIFY: 
Applicants whose sole disability is  AIDS." Once again, on the
physician statement portion of the form, it states, "Applicants
do not qualify if their sole disability is  AIDS."
Accompanying the Complaint is a motion for preliminary
injunction. Attached to this motion is Hamlyn's affidavit in
which he states in relevant part:
4. My AIDS disability causes me to have limited
6. I desire to participate in Metro Link's Reduced
Fare Program in order to participate more fully in
social, family, and community activities.
16. I suffered and continue to suffer emotional
distress as a result of my exclusion from the
Reduced Fare Program.
In order to obtain a preliminary injunction, the movant must
show: (1) that the case has some likelihood of success on the
merits; (2) that no adequate remedy at law exists; and (3) that
the movant will suffer irreparable harm if the injunction is not
granted. Storck USA, L.P. v. Farley Candy Co., 14 F.3d 311,
313-14 (7th Cir. 1994). Only if these three conditions are met
must the Court proceed to balance the harm to the movant if the
injunction is not issued against the harm to the defendant if it
is issued improvidently. Id. at 314. In addition, the court
must consider the public interest in its decision. Id.
As presently reflected by the record before the Court,
Plaintiff has failed to establish that he has no adequate remedy
at law or that he will suffer irreparable harm if the injunction
is not granted. The rule is clear: monetary loss does not
constitute an irreparable injury because a successful plaintiff
can be adequately compensated at the conclusion of the
litigation. Classic Components Supply, Inc. v. Mitsubishi Elec.
Am., Inc., 841 F.2d 163, 164-65 (7th Cir. 1988); Chicago
Typographical Union, No. 16 v. Chicago Newspaper Publishers'
Assoc., 620 F.2d 602, 604 (7th Cir. 1980).
There are four possible exceptions to this rule: (1) the
plaintiff is so poor that he would be harmed in the interim by
the loss of the monetary benefits; (2) the plaintiff would be
unable to finance his lawsuit without the money he wishes to
recover; (3) the damages would be unobtainable from the defendant
because it will be insolvent prior to the final judgment; and (4)
the nature of the plaintiff's loss may make damages very
difficult to calculate. Roland Machinery ...
Buy This Entire Record For