Laserfiche WebLink
vacate the NOV without prejudice without going before the Boazd. The Board reinstated the <br />NOV and scheduled the NOV for a hearing before the Board on Apri12~, 2001. The Board <br />issued its written order from the March 21, 2001, hearing on April 10, 2001, and it is that order <br />from which the Plaintiffs now seek judicial review. <br />ARGUMENT <br />I. THIS COURT DOES NOT HAVE JURISDICTION BECAUSE THE ORDER <br />FROM WHICH JUDICIAL REVIEW IS SOUGHT DID NOT CONSTITUTE FINAL <br />AGENCY ACTION <br />Under the State Administrative Procedure Act, the Court may only exercise judicial <br />review jurisdiction over final agency actions. The order issued by the Board in this case was an <br />interim legal determination on agency jurisdiction and did not constitute final agency action. As <br />such, the Cotta does not have jurisdiction over the Complaint for Judicial Review. The Court <br />should dismiss the Complaint for Judicial Review for lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter <br />and deny the Application for Temporary Relief. <br />Fttrthetmore, this case is also not ripe for review as the Plaintiffs have not yet exhausted <br />their administrative remedies. There is a hearing scheduled on the merits of the NOV on April <br />2~, 2001, and the Plaintiffs may yet receive a favorable judgment from the Board in that hearing. <br />It is not only premature for the Court to review this case prior to the hearing, it is inimical to the <br />Plaintiffs' own interests to seek a postponement of the very hearing that may, if the Court allows <br />the agency process to continue unhindered, provide the Plaintiffs the relief they have sought all <br />along. For the additional reason that the Plaintiffs have failed to exhaust their administrative <br />remedies, the Court does not have jurisdiction over this matter and should both dismiss the <br />Complaint for Judicial Review and deny the Application for Temporary Relief. <br />6 <br />