Reference no: EM132300665

As required by the statute, Tattoos-Are-Us (TRUS) obtained a STAB license for its tattoo parlor in the state. However, STAB sent a certified letter, dated September 1, 2004, to TRUS stating that STAB intended to impose a $10,000 fine against TRUS on the grounds that TRUS had failed to comply with standards for safe tattooing practices. The letter also stated that TRUS had the right to object to the proposed $10,000 fine by requesting an administrative appeal before STAB within 30 days of September 1, 2004. Rather than requesting an administrative hearing before STAB, however, the lawyer representing TRUS filed a lawsuit against STAB in state court on September 3, 2004. Under these circumstances, which of the following statements, if any, is true? TRUS has the right to challenge the action of STAB in court at this time because of the doctrine of separation of powers TRUS may not challenge the action of STAB in court at this time because of the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies TRUS may not challenge the action of STAB in court at this time because of the doctrine of federalism None of the above.