Summary
providing an out-line of the requirements for "prudential exhaustion"
Summary of this case from U.S. v. SeibertOpinion
No. 03-2800C.
Filed October 20, 2005
ERRATUM ORDER
The last sentence (reprinted below with the accompanying footnote) of the second-to-last paragraph of section II, subsection C, of the Court's August 1, 2005 Opinion and Order (slip op. at 9, White Case LLP v. United States, 67 Fed. Cl. 164, 171 (2005)) should be corrected to read as follows:
While the Court is sympathetic to the Government's concern that acceptance of the plaintiff's position "would inevitably lead to informants dictating the pace and cadence of DHS's multiple and vital investigations," Def.'s Reply at 9, where, as here, the plaintiff has waited over five years for a decision from Customs and there is no administrative procedure the plaintiff can follow to force Customs to act,9 the Court is confident that any adverse effects of allowing the case to move forward will be minimal and, moreover, can be lessened by first giving the agency the opportunity to issue a decision on the matter.
The above correction is not substantive.
IT IS SO ORDERED.