is denied. Judgment shall be entered accordingly. 1 In addition to opposing plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction, defendant moves to dismiss based on lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Because the court will order more complete briefing on this issue, it declines to rule on the motion to dismiss here. See U.S. Ass’n of Importers of Textiles and Apparel v. United States Dep’t of Commerce, 413 F.3d 1344, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (“We see no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s decision to delay consideration of the government’s motion to dismiss until briefing was completed.”). 2 Prior to this motion for a preliminary injunction, there has been substantial litigation in this case. See Int’l Custom Prods., Inc. v. United States, 29 CIT _, _, 374 F. Supp. 2d 1311 (2005) (<HOLDING>); Int'l Custom Prods., Inc. v. United States,
holding that failure to follow specific amendment procedures rendered attempted amendment of bylaws null and void recognizing that orders entered after the passage of the fiveyear deadline requiring automatic dismissal are null and void for lack of jurisdiction holding that a garnishment proceeding could not proceed because the underlying judgment was null and void holding that proceedings  involving a layperson representing a corporation are null and void ah initio holding customs notice of action reclassifying icps white sauce to be null and void