Opinion ID: 148399
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Did the plaintiffs exhaust?

Text: The plaintiffs say yes because each had filed a § 741 Complaint Request and, with the exception of Messrs. Pearson and McDonald, received a letter from the Director before suing. On this view, the letter was a determination subject to judicial review pursuant to § 741(c). [] As the district court stated, the plaintiffs' argument cannot be squared with the language and structure of the regulations implementing § 741. 577 F.Supp.2d at 24. The Director's letter is not judicially reviewable because § 741(c) provides for judicial review only insofar as a claim is denied administratively. The letter does not do that; it merely informs the complainant of the Director's decision not to negotiate a settlement. 7 C.F.R. § 15f.9. A decision to deny a complaint can be issued only to a claimant who requested a formal hearing. 7 C.F.R. §§ 15f.9.16. Therefore, in order to exhaust their administrative remedy the plaintiffs would have had to request a formal hearing before an ALJ. Although they could have done so at any time after they filed their complaints with the OCR and for 30 days after receiving notice of the Director's decision, the plaintiffs filed this suit without first having requested a formal hearing. Their failure to exhaust that administrative remedy bars judicial review of their claims under the ECOA unless, as they argue, the court has, and it is appropriate in this case to exercise, discretion to excuse that omission.