Documents related to the FATCA lawsuit.
Plaintiffs have standing.
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a), complaints need only provide a
“short and plain statement” regarding jurisdiction and claims. To survive a motion
to dismiss, a complaint needs only to contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as
true, to “‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556
U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citation omitted).
Defendants request that the lower court’s verdict be upheld.
Plaintiffs request oral argument. 6 Cir. R. 34(a). This case involves many facts and plaintiffs, eight counts, and complex legal arguments. Moreover, it is a case of national import, with effects reaching far beyond the present Plaintiffs because the challenged provisions and agreements cause serious harm to myriad Americans. The opportunity for counsel to answer questions and clarify facts, issues, and arguments is essential to proper resolution of this appeal.
Plaintiffs request that the Court enjoin Defendants from enforcing the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act(“FATCA”), the intergovernmental agreements (“IGAs”) negotiated by the United States Department of the Treasury (“Treasury Department”) to supplant FATCA in the signatory countries, and the Report of Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts (“FBAR”) administered by the United States Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (“FinCEN”). FATCA mandates that foreign financial institutions report the tax return information of their U.S. citizen account holders directly to the IRS using the FATCA Report (Form 8966). 26 U.S.C.§ 1471(b)(1)(C); 26 C.F.R. §§ 1.1471-4(d)(3)(v), -4(d)(3)(vi).
For the reasons set forth above, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to Filean Amended Verified Complaint, (doc. 32), and the Court GRANTS Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, (doc. 26), Plaintiffs’ Complaint. The captioned case is hereby TERMINATED upon the docket records of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Western Division, at Dayton.
The Procedural Posture of the Case Supports Dismissal
A. The Court Should Grant the Motion to Dismiss for the Same Reasons
Stated in Its Decision Denying the Motion for Preliminary Injunction 1
In ruling on the motion for preliminary injunction, the Court found that
plaintiffs almost entirely lack standing and that their Fifth and Eighth
Amendment claims are legally meritless. Doc. 30.
A. Plaintiffs Have Standing
Plaintiffs have standing under Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560-61 1992) because they are suffering ongoing and threatened concrete injuries to protected interests caused by challenged provisions, of which they are the object, and the requested relief will redress those injuries. Because at least one plaintiff has standing for each claim, the Court need not decide the standing of each. See McConnell v. FEC, 540 U.S. 93, 233 (2003). Read more
Plaintiffs reply to the Government’s Opposition (Doc. No. 34) to their Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint (Doc. No. 31). The Government (i) requests dismissal, incorporating by reference large portions of its dismissal motion, and (ii) claims that amendment would be futile. But (I) dismissal should only be considered on full, final briefing on dismissal based on the amended complaint; (II) any “futility” must be obvious (which is not the case here), with far-reaching analysis reserved for the dismissal-motion context, and (III) amendment would not be futile.
Last Friday on behalf of Presidential candidate, Senator Rand Paul along with other nine co-plaintiffs, Republicans Overseas Action, Inc. (ROA) files the 78-page Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to Amended Complaint against the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA), the intergovernmental agreements (IGAs), and the Report of Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts (FBAR) in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio.
The Amended Complaint addresses standing issues, adding new facts about plaintiffs (such as who meets certain trigger amounts for disclosure) and adds challenges to two other IGAs: Danish IGA and French IGA to address harm caused to certain plaintiffs. It also adds Lois Kuettel, Katerina Johnson, and Richard Adams as new plaintiffs.
Plaintiffs move for leave to file an amended verified complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a). The proposed amended complaint is included as an attachment in the ECF filing.
Plaintiffs’ counsel have consulted with Defendants’ counsel seeking consent to the filing of the amended complaint and asking whether Defendants oppose this motion for leave to file the amended complaint. Defendants’ counsel advised Plaintiffs’ counsel on October 30, 2015 as follows: “We do not consent to the amended complaint and oppose a motion for leave to amend.”
Defendants’ counsel provided no explanation for those responses.