The second suit filed against the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency over its so-called fintech charter has been tossed.

The lawsuit, filed by the Conference of State Bank Supervisors, a group of state financial regulators, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, challenged the OCC's authority to oversee nonbanks, including financial technology companies.

The special purpose national bank charter, proposed by the OCC in late 2016, has sparked much debate in the banking industry. Some have praised the charter as a means for uniform federal regulation for fintechs, as opposed to having these companies comply with 50 separate state laws.

In a decision filed late Monday, U.S. District Judge Dabney Friedrich granted the OCC's motion to dismiss the case. The dismissal mirrored a decision from December in which a federal judge threw out a similar complaint filed by the New York Department of Financial Services.

The OCC, under its former comptroller, Thomas Curry, had expressed interest in moving forward with the charter, but after a public comment period and the two lawsuits, the agency has yet to take concrete action.

In a 20-page opinion filed Monday, Friedrich wrote that “the prudential ripeness doctrine counsels in favor of allowing time to sharpen this dispute before deciding it. Indeed, there may ultimately be no case to decide at all if the OCC does not charter a Fintech. Therefore, even if CSBS had successfully alleged an injury in fact, this case is prudentially unripe.”

There has been some sign that there could be forward momentum on the charter in the near future. According to a report from Reuters last month, newly minted Comptroller Joseph Otting has indicated he will offer an opinion on how the OCC intends to move forward on the issue.

“We haven't concluded on the position and we welcome people's feedback,” Otting said at a conference in Washington, D.C., last month. “But I would say that if we did allow fintech to be regulated, they would be subject to the same rules and regulations as other banks.”

In an emailed statement, CSBS president and CEO John Ryan pointed out that the “judge did not render a decision on the merits” of the case.

“State regulators continue to supervise a vibrant financial services market of banks and nonbanks alike, promoting access to innovative products while ensuring consumer protection,” Ryan said. “Indeed, states are actively modernizing financial regulation by moving towards an integrated, 50-state system of licensing and supervision for fintechs and other nonbanks.”

A spokesman for the OCC, Bryan Hubbard, declined to comment on the court's decision. He said in an email that “the Comptroller continues to evaluate whether to move forward with its authority to issue special purpose national bank charters to qualifying nondepository financial technology companies engaged in the business of banking.”

Hubbard continued, “Where engaged in the business of banking and the business models warrant it, fintechs may seek full service or other long-established limited-purpose national bank charters. If the agency does move forward to exercise its authority to issue special purpose national bank charters to qualifying nondepository financial technology companies engaged in the business of banking, the resulting bank would be supervised as other similarly situated banks with appropriate requirements for capital, liquidity and meeting the financial needs of its customers.”

This story has been updated to include comment from CSBS and OCC.