The opinion of the court was delivered by: McDADE, District Judge.
Plaintiff, Howard D. Hamlyn ("Hamlyn"), brings this action on
behalf of himself and all those similarly situated against
Defendants Rock Island Metropolitan Mass. Transit District ("Metro
Link") and its individual members for their alleged policy of
denying equal access to their reduced fare program solely because
Plaintiff has AIDS. On July 16, 1997, this Court certified the
following class for purposes of declaratory and/or injunctive
All persons who are now or will be otherwise eligible
to participate in Metro Link's Reduced Fare Program
but who are or will be excluded from participation
solely because they have AIDS.
The Court also found that Plaintiff has standing to bring this
action on behalf of himself and the class. In particular, the
Court found that Plaintiff did not need to apply for the program
because Metro Link's written policy is "so facially
discriminatory" that it would "deter a reasonable person in
Plaintiff's position from even completing the application
process." Preliminary Ruling at 5.
Currently before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion for Partial
Summary Judgment on liability as to the three individual claims
against Metro Link. The Motion is brought pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure ("Rule") 56(d). The Motion is fully
briefed, and after consideration of the pleadings and statements
of undisputed facts filed pursuant to Local Rule 7.1(D), this
Court finds that the Motion should be GRANTED.
Effective June 1997, Local Rule 7.1(D) was revised to state:
(1) Any party filing a motion for summary judgment
shall file and serve with the motion a separate
document (entitled "Statement of Undisputed
Facts") which numerically lists each undisputed
fact relied upon in the memorandum of law in
support of the motion, with citation to discovery
material or affidavits that support the
contention that the fact is undisputed. If a fact
is not numerically listed, it will not be
considered by the court.
(2) Similar to answering a complaint, in response
the party opposing the summary judgment, shall
file a separate document (entitled "Response to
[S]tatement of Undisputed Facts") which
numerically responds to each of the movant's
undisputed facts. The party will either admit
or contest the fact. If the fact is contested,
the party (1) shall submit a short and plain
statement of why the fact is in dispute and (2)
cite to discovery material or affidavits that
support the contention that the fact is disputed.
(3) The party opposing the summary judgment motion
may also — if necessary — file a separate document
(entitled "[S]tatement of [A]dditional Undisputed
Facts") which numerically lists each additional
fact relied upon in the memorandum of law in
response to the movant's summary judgment motion,
with citation to discovery material or affidavits
that support the contention that the additional
fact is undisputed. If the party opposing summary
judgment relies on additional facts in response
and the facts are not numerically listed, they
will not be considered by the court.
Although Plaintiff's Rule 7.1 Statement of Undisputed Facts was
filed in April,
before the effective date of these revisions, it complies with
the new rule. Defendants' Rule 7.1 "Response to Statement of
Undisputed Facts," however, does not comply with the new Rule
7.1(D)(2), even though it was filed on September 2, 1997, well
after the effective date of the revisions to the local rules.
First, Defendants' Statement of Facts is not a response to
Plaintiff's Rule 7.1 Statement, but rather a new set of facts
which Defendants contend are in "dispute." Second, Defendants'
Statement is not set out like an answer to a complaint, because
it does not directly admit or deny whether the facts asserted by
Plaintiff are "undisputed." Instead, the "response" that
Defendants have filed is more like a "Statement of Additional
Undisputed Facts." Defendants, however, have labeled their
statement as one filed "pursuant to local rule 7.1(D)(2)." As a
response, this Statement does not comply with Rule 7.1(D)(2).
Accordingly, this Court will treat: Plaintiff's Statement of
Undisputed Facts as admitted. Pursuant to Rule 56(d), the Court
further finds that the following facts exist without substantial
controversy and will be deemed established at the trial of this
The Seventh Circuit has addressed this issue several times,
stating: "[i]t is not our task, or that of the district court, to
scour the record in search of a genuine issue of triable fact. We
rely on the nonmoving party to identify with reasonable
particularity the evidence that precludes summary judgment."
Richards v. Combined Ins. Co. of America, 55 F.3d 247, 251 (7th
Cir. 1995). The Seventh Circuit has "endorsed the exacting
obligation [local] rules impose on a party contesting summary
judgment to highlight which factual averments are in conflict as
well as what record evidence there is to confirm the dispute . .
." Waldridge v. American Hoechst Corp., 24 F.3d 918, 921-22
(7th Cir. 1994). The Seventh Circuit has "repeatedly . . .
sustained the entry of summary judgment where "the nonmovant has
failed to submit a factual statement in the form called for by
the pertinent rule and thereby conceded the movant's version of
the facts." Id. at 922. This is such a case. Accordingly, for
purposes of this motion, the Court takes as undisputed each fact
alleged in Plaintiff's Rule 7.1 Statement. These facts are as
Plaintiff Howard Hamlyn is a resident of Moline, Illinois, who
has Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome ("AIDS"). Plaintiff's
Statement of Undisputed Facts ("Stmt.") ¶ 1. Defendant Rock
Island County Mass. Transit District ("Metro Link") is a municipal
corporation organized under the laws of Illinois for the purpose
of providing mass transportation services to Rock Island County.
Id. at ¶ 2. Metro Link is a public entity as defined by Title
II of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). Id. at ...