Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

HAMLYN v. ROCK ISLAND COUNTY METRO. MASS TRANSIT

October 23, 1997

HOWARD D. HAMLYN, ON HIS OWN BEHALF AND ON BEHALF OF ALL THOSE SIMILARLY SITUATED, PLAINTIFF,
v.
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.

  ORDER

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 relief only:

  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.

UNDISPUTED FACTS

Effective June 1997, Local Rule 7.1(D) was revised to state:

(D) Summary Judgment.

    (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.

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 follows.

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 ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.