have failed to allege that they are fearful that the government will seize their property based on allegations that they are structuring their banking transactions. Essentially, Plaintiffs have failed to allege that they are engaging in conduct that falls within the confínes of § 981(a). Plaintiffs argue that the loss of $4 million, their forfeited assets, suffices to show they have suffered sufficient injury to seek judicial relief in striking down the statute. However, that Plaintiffs have already forfeited property under § 981(a) is irrelevant where Plaintiffs have failed to allege with credible facts that they will be subjected to forfeiture of their assets under § 981(a) in the immediate future. See, e.g., Versarge v. Township of Clinton N.J., 984 F.2d 1359, 1369 (3d Cir.1993) (<HOLDING>); Smith v. Montgomery County, Md., 573 F.Supp.
holding that where the question to be resolved in the declaratory judgment action will be decided in a pending action it is inappropriate to grant a declaratory judgment holding that the declaratory judgment act is remedial only and the party seeking declaratory relief must have an underlying cause of action holding that firefighter who was expelled from volunteer fire company could not bring declaratory action seeking declaratory judgment that provision under which he was expelled was overbroad because he had not alleged with sufficiently credible facts that the challenged provision would be applied against him in the future holding that filing of infringement action twelve days after complaint for declaratory judgment obviated the need for a declaratory judgment in this case holding that the injured party had standing to appeal the declaratory judgment in favor of the insurance company and noting that it was decisive to the holding that dairyland named the injured appellants in its declaratory judgment action