will have a sufficient opportunity to bring its challenge to the legality of a plan or regulation at some future time, when harm is “more imminent and more certain,” the matter at issue is not ripe for adjudication by the courts. See id. A controversy is ripe for judicial review when the threat of prosecution “is credible, and not merely speculative.” See Gross v. Taylor, 1997 WL 535872, at *9 (E.D.Pa.1997). A finding that a plaintiff cannot point to some way in which a challenged action or regulation could force it to modify or alter its behavior in order to avoid future adverse consequences supports the conclusion that an issue is not ripe for judicial review. See Ohio Forestry, — U.S. —, —, 118 S.Ct. 1665, 1670-71; see also Wilmac Corp. v. Bowen, 811 F.2d 809, 813 (3d Cir.1987) (<HOLDING>). Turning to the case at bar, plaintiff would
holding that the premise underlying the action was that plaintiff was deceived by the words and actions of an employer the subject of the deception was pension benefits but that was only incidental and not essential to the cause of action holding that a challenge was not ripe because the plaintiff was not threatened with any injury or sanction by completing construction of a facility no action was compelled and the placement of the plaintiffs future economic return in some uncertainty was alone insufficient hardship to warrant review holding that to bring a cause of action in federal court requires that plaintiffs establish at an irreducible minimum an injury in fact that is there must be some threatened or actual injury resulting from the putatively illegal action holding that dismissal of the plaintiffs complaint was too drastic a remedy where plaintiff had difficulty getting to the united states from jamaica the deposition was set after the cutoff date for completing discovery and it was only eleven days prior to trial holding that the plaintiffs claim was moot because the construction project which was the subject of the dispute had been completed