plans of action, and whether withholding judgment would pose a hardship to the parties. See NE Hub Partners, 239 F.3d at 344. Should this Court enjoin the PUC from continuing its proceedings, that resolution would certainly be useful to Amtrak. Such a resolution would relieve Amtrak the burden of participating in a time consuming state process, and withholding judgment would subject Amtrak to the hardship of that process. See NE Hub Partners, 239 F.3d at 343, 345. Consequently, the Court concludes that Amtrak’s Complaint against the PUC is ripe. Finally, the PUC claims that it is immune from suit under the Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution. Amtrak contends that collateral es-toppel bars nnsylvania Public Utility Com’n, 1998 WL 103377, at *2-3 (E.D.Pa. Feb.23, 1998) (<HOLDING>), appeal dismissed, 178 F.3d 1280 (3rd Cir.
holding that res judicata did not apply where a trial courts order was not a final judgment holding that rule 60b cannot provide any relief from the district courts judgment on an 18 usc  3582 motion because  3582 actions are criminal in nature and rule 60b is applicable only to civil proceedings holding that decision that puc was not arm of the state was res judicata and denying pucs rule 60b motion for relief from judgment holding that the standard of review is abuse of discretion and an appeal from denial of rule 60b relief does not bring up the underlying judgment for review holding that res judicata is not applicable to a claim for relief that was unavailable in the earlier action