Bitter is correct. Nearly all of the cases cited by Windsor to support its contention that this action is unripe involve either possible future conduct by the plaintiff or potential government action, and are irrelevant to a party's decision whether to bring suit for breach of contract. SeeChandler v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 598 F.3d 1115, 1123 (9th Cir. 2010) ("Unless and until Plaintiff sues the third-party tortfeasor and is unable to recover the amount he claims he is owned [sic], Plaintiff cannot claim that Defendant has prevented him from recovering that amount") (emphasis added); Sellers v. Regents of Univ. of Cal., 432 F.2d 493, 500 (9th Cir. 1970) (refusing to enjoin enforcement of statute and noting that "we can only speculate as to the type of future activity in which [the plaintiffs] will engage in"); Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Assoc., Inc. v. State of Cal., No. 10-cv-02010, 2010 WL 4982956, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 2, 2010) ("No one can yet anticipate how the [new, yet to be implemented state statute] will affect Plaintiffs and/or their business."); Portland Gen. Electr. Co. v. Myers, No. 03-cv-1641, 2004 WL 1722215 (D. Or. July 24, 2004) ("Although any civil charges filed against [the plaintiff] will likely be preempted by the FPA, the court cannot evaluate such a claim until the investigation [of the plaintiff] is completed."). A potential plaintiff's decision whether to sue for breach of contract is not the type of "uncertain" or "contingent event" contemplated by the ripeness doctrine when the event underlying the alleged breached has already occurred and the potential plaintiff has sent a demand letter.