Did the Department wait too long to charge you? Maybe.
An unreasonable delay in proceeding with adjudication constitutes waiver by a licensing body. The Administrative Procedures Act disapproves of unreasonable agency delays. See, e.g., Muwekma Tribe v. Babbit, 133 F.Supp.2d 30 (D.D.C. 2000) citing with approval Weinberger v. Salfi, 422 U.S. 749, 755-56, 95 S.Ct. 2457 (1975). “Nonenforcement of statutory mandate” can result in the dismissal of charges. Cutler v. Hayes, 818 F.2d 879 (D.C. 1987); Securities and Exchange Commission v. Jones, 476 F.Supp.2d 374, 384 (S.D.N.Y.2007) citing with approval Proffitt v. FDIC, 200 F.3d 855, 862 (D.C. Cir.2000). Courts must "consider the nature and extent of the interests prejudiced by the delay, the agency justification for the pace of the decision, and the context of the statutory scheme out of which the dispute arises." Muwekma v. Babbit, 133 F.Supp.2d at 36.Courts utilize a multi-factor test to determine whether delay constitutes waiver. See, e.g., TRAC v. FCC, 750 F.2d 70, 80 (D.C.Cir.1984). First, the pace at which the agency proceeds must follow a “rule of reason.” Id. The rule of reason holds that “reasonable” means “expeditious” where there is no express deadline. Independence Mining, Co. v. Babbitt, 885 F.supp. 1356, 1365 (D. Nevada 1995). In certain situations, administrative delays may be unavoidable, however, extensive or repeated delays are unacceptable and will not justify the pace of action. See MCI v. FCC, 627 F.2d 322 (D.C.Cir.1980) (finding four-year was unreasonable). The second factor asks, in cases when there is specific deadline for final agency action is provided by the legislature, if the reasonableness of the delay can be measured in relation to this deadline. See In re Center for Auto Safety, 793 F.2d 1346, 1353 (D.C.Cir.1986) (finding DOI's delay unreasonable in light of repeated violation of statutory timetables). The third factor considers the nature and extent of the interests prejudiced by delay. Fourth, delays are less tolerable when human health and welfare are at stake than when commercial concerns are involved. Independence Mining, Co. v. Babbitt, 885 F.supp. at 1365. Fifth, expediting delayed agency action should not adversely affect the agency’s ability to act on proceedings of a higher or competing priority. Sixth, impropriety is not essential to a finding of unreasonable delay. See, e.g., TRAC v. FCC, 750 F.2d at 80.