for discretionary return of the property,” while a claim “initiates the judicial process to decide whether the property should be forfeited.” Malladi Drugs & Pharm,., Ltd. v. Tandy, 552 F.3d 885, 889 (D.C.Cir.2009) (Malladi Drugs). “A party claiming ownership of the seized property may choose to pursue either the administrative or the legal remedy, complying with the applicable filing deadline for its choice.” Id. “The forfeiture statutes and regulations provide alternative, not sequential, administrative and legal remedies for an administrative forfeiture.” Id. at 890. If a party pursues the administrative path, files a petition for remission, and the petition is denied, the only avenue to set aside the declaration of forfeiture is if the notice d 581, 582 (8th Cir.1998) (per curiam) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, as it properly held, the
holding that the remedies are exclusive holding that remedies provided in the bankruptcy code for enforcing a chapter 11 plan of reorganization are not exclusive holding plaintiffs were not foreclosed from pursuing ucc remedies outside of written warranty because warranty notice provision did not specify that the remedies provided were exclusive of any other remedy holding that if adequate administrative remedies are available it is improper to seek relief in court before those remedies are exhausted holding that the act provides the exclusive procedures and remedies for common law causes of action based on allegations of deception fraud and misrepresentation