cross posted from Brock by Stephen Kish

The Canadian FATCA IGA legislation trial will be held on Monday, January 28, 2019 at 701 West Georgia Street in Vancouver British Columbia, at 9:30 a.m. PST [5:30 p.m. Greenwich Mean Time (GMT)], for a maximum of 5 days. Some of you will be able to attend.

— The information that I have just received is that the Federal Court has agreed to permit a live webcast of the trial, mounted by the Alliance for the Defence of Canadian Sovereignty.

I am to receive information on the webcast by the end of the week and will provide the info on this post.

The webcast will be made NOT by the media, but rather by the Court itself (This, I believe, is quite extraordinary and good news for the public).

On January 30, 2015 “Canadian Cop” on a Brock post explained very clearly why we have to go to Court: “…the US can do what they want, but it is the betrayal by the Canadian government that is far worse.”

See our Alliance for the Defence of Canadian Sovereignty legal counsel John Richardson interviewed by CBC  on the FATCA trial. In 2016 and 2017 private information private information on a total of 600,000 private accounts   were turned over by Canada to the U.S. IRS each year. How many of you provided written informed consent for the turnover of your account information to a foreign country?

We strongly urge ALL peoples, worldwide, oppressed by the imposition of the foreign FATCA law, and especially by the failure of their own country to protect their citizens from harm, to take advantage of this very unique opportunity — and watch the webcast.

Details to follow.

“Canada is expected to defend the constitutional rights and freedoms of its citizens and not bargain them away or capitulate to threats from a foreign bully state.” say Plaintiffs Gwen and Kazia in 12/13/2018 Canada Federal Court FATCA submission — Plaintiffs go to court January 28, 2019 and will ask for your support, later, for the appeal costs

by Stephen Kish

…and Plaintiffs go on to say:

“The notion that a foreign state could indirectly cause the violation of a Charter right in circumstances where Canada could not do so directly simply cannot be accepted. This is a deeply illiberal proposition and it would undermine the principle of the rule of law which explicitly animates the Charter.”

UPDATE: FATCA IGA litigation in Canada Federal Court: The guts of our Plaintiffs’ (Gwen and Kazia) arguments and those of the Government we oppose (for simplicity, “Canada”) can now be found in four court documents submitted between October 3 and December 13, 2018 (see below for some excerpts). The Court submissions can be found on our ADCS website.

The trial, which fleshes out the written arguments in orals in Federal Court, will be held the week of January 28, 2019 (next month) in Vancouver. We hope that some of you will attend.

FUNDING WILL BE NEEDED FOR THE EXPECTED APPEAL: A trial decision will come at some indeterminate time later (June 2019?) and it can be expected that THERE WILL BE AN APPEAL NO MATTER WHO WINS.

However, our appeal will only happen if we are successful in seeking funds, again from our supporters, for the costs of the appeal (Canada has unlimited funds from taxpayers).

At present we do not intend to seek funds for the appeal costs until pronouncement of judgement.

The first filing deadline is 30 days after court decision, and then a series of new 30 day deadlines kick in, and we will need to scramble very quickly to obtain the necessary funds our legal team will need to pay for their costs.


  1. October 3, 2018 Plaintiffs’ Complaint. We argue in part that Canada’s FATCA IGA legislation violates Sections 7, 8, and 15, of our Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the sovereignty of our country. Includes: ” …the principle of nonintervention between states is a cornerstone of the international order and intrinsically connected to state sovereignty; it is undoubtedly considered by all Canadians to be fundamental to their notion of justice that Canada will not expose them to enforcement of another state’s laws; and it is predictable and easily applied – simply, Canada may not allow other state to enforce their laws on individuals residing in Canada.”
  2. November 21, 2018 Canada’s response to Plaintiffs’ Complaint. Many arguments including: Canada argues that it responded wisely to a threat from a bully:“…severe consequences to the Canadian financial sector, its customers and investors, and to the Canadian economy as a whole if Canadian financial institutions were unable or unwilling to comply with FATCA.” “…the plaintiffs have no standing..” because their accounts were not turned over, etc. “The CRS has been adopted by over 100 countries, including Canada…” “While it is acknowledged that the Impugned Provisions cause the seizure of information for the purposes of s.8, the plaintiffs do not have an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy in that information.” “The plaintiffs argue for the recognition of a novel principle of fundamental justice “that Canada will not deny its citizens the protection of Canadian sovereignty”. This proposed principle does not meet the requirements of a principle of fundamental justice as outlined by the Supreme Court of Canada.” “Avoiding the possibility of such catastrophic effects as a decline in GDP, labour income, employment, a depreciation of the Canadian dollar and a lowering of the standard of living of Canadians, are certainly sufficiently pressing and substantial to justify any minimal limitation on rights which may be found to a be result of the Impugned Provisions.”
  3. December 7, 2018 Plaintiff’s response to Canada’s motion to strike out some testimony of our witnesses. Includes: “Canada seeks to strike the entirety of the Second Nightingale Affidavit based on a lack of relevance. The Second Nightingale Affidavit concerns the Exit Tax. As explained in the plaintiffs’ Memorandum of Fact and Law, the Exit Tax is relevant context in this constitutional case because it constitutes part of the burden faced by some individuals of avoiding exposure to the Impugned Provisions.” “The out of court statements referred to by Ms. Tapanila to which Canada objects are not adduced for the truth of their contents, but rather for the fact that they were made. The plaintiffs do not rely on the legal advice lay witnesses were given for the truth of its contents. Rather, the plaintiffs rely on the fact that these witnesses sought and paid for legal advice, in many cases from multiple lawyers and at significant expense. This evidence establishes that it can be onerous and costly for an individual to determine whether and how they may be affected by the Impugned Provisions – and if they are affected, whether and how they may avoid this by changing their immigration status under US law – as referred to in the plaintiffs’ Memorandum of Fact and Law, at paragraph 19. The specific legal opinions lay witnesses received are not relevant to this point.” [I will not provide a link to this short submission, which includes the names of witnesses other than that of Carol Tapanila, whose name is already in the public domain.]
  4. December 13, 2018 Plaintiffs’ reply record for the Summary Trial. Includes: “This is the first time Canada has raised standing as an issue. It does not plead that the plaintiffs lack standing in its Amended Statement of Defence. Canada’s assertion that the plaintiffs’ rights have not been affected by the Impugned Provisions is incorrect. It is undisputed that the plaintiffs bear US Person Indicia, since they both have an unambiguous US Place of Birth. As a result, any Low Value Accounts they own now or in the future may be reported and shared pursuant to the Impugned Provisions. For Lower Value Accounts or High Value Accounts that they own now or in the future,the relevant FIs are required pursuant to the Impugned Provisions to obtain or review the plaintiffs’ Proof of Loss of US Citizenship.” “Further, or in the alternative, the plaintiffs have public interest standing to challenge the Impugned Provisions…Relatedly, in an earlier summary trial in this proceeding, this Court declined to grant costs given “the public interest involved in clarifying the scope of novel provisions affecting hundreds of thousands of Canadian citizens.” etc. “Canada relies on the expert report of Matthias Oschinski for the proposition that if all of Canada’s big banks did not comply with FATCA, and the Impugned Provisions were not implemented, Canada would face significant negative economic impacts. In fact, Mr. Oschinski agreed that the severity of those impacts was subject to a “great deal of uncertainty” More importantly…” “This Court has already observed that the Common Reporting Standard is different from FATCA in “significant ways”. Comparing the CRS and the Impugned Provisions – as Canada does in various parts of its argument – does not aid in the resolution of this case.

“…the record before the court actually does not establish that the plaintiffs have US tax reporting obligations [!]. There is no expert evidence before the court that considers the plaintiffs’ immigration and citizenship status under US law. The plaintiffs are affected by the Impugned Provisions because they bear US Person Indicia, not because they are US citizens. This is important: it is the presence or absence of US Person Indicia – as defined in the Impugned Provisions – that determines whether an individual is affected by the Impugned Provisions, not their citizenship status under US law. As noted above, Canada’s submission unreasonably assumes that the two are perfectly correlated.” “Canada states that its primary purpose in enacting the Impugned Provisions was to “avoid the potentially catastrophic impacts of FATCA on Canadian financial institutions, their customers and the Canadian economy.” It says its secondary purposes were to (a) lessen “the burden of the direct application of FATCA on Canadian financial institutions and their customers” and (b) “obtaining additional automatic exchange of information from the US to Canada for Canadian taxation purposes.” Assuming that the first of the secondary purpose is different than the alleged primary purpose, we do not accept that lessening of an undefined “burden” would be a legitimate objective for purpose of s. 8 or s. 1. As to Canada’s secondary purpose (b), while it is supported by one paragraph of the preamble to the IGA, it is undermined by all other relevant evidence and the effect of the law…Third, and in any event, Canada’s articulation of its “primary purpose” is too general to be accepted. A purpose that is articulated in too general terms will provide no meaningful check on the means employed to achieve it. Not only is the threat of economic harm Canada refers to amorphous and highly uncertain, it is so general that it could justify any rights infringement arguably motivated by such a threat from a foreign state…Canada effectively maintains that it enacted the Impugned Provisions under duress from a foreign state. The Court should be very slow to accept this as a justification for infringements of the Charter. Canada is expected to defend the constitutional rights and freedoms of its citizens and not bargain them away or capitulate to threats from a foreign bully state. The notion that a foreign state could indirectly cause the violation of a Charter right in circumstances where Canada could not do so directly simply cannot be accepted. This is a deeply illiberal proposition and it would undermine the principle of the rule of law which explicitly animates the Charter. ”

“Further, even if a desire to avoid financial punishment by a foreign state is accepted as the actual objective underlying the Impugned Provisions, and is considered a valid basis to violate a Charter right, there is significant uncertainty surrounding (a) whether the United States actually would have inflicted that punishment if Canada did not abide, or would do so now if the Impugned Provisions were declared of no force or effect, and (b) the severity of the financial consequences if they were to materialize.” “Canada does not deny that the CRA will use Accountholder Information obtained pursuant to the Impugned Provisions for domestic tax compliance work, nor does it refute the plaintiffs’ contention that such use is unrelated to the objectives of the Impugned Provisions. However, Canada relies on Jarvis for the proposition that “once information is validly gathered by the CRA any reasonable expectation of privacy in the information is lost.” On this basis, it suggests that the CRA’s use of this information is not unreasonable. Jarvis cannot be applied to the present case in the manner suggested by Canada. First…”

“In asserting that the Impugned Provisions are minimally impairing, Canada states that it is not the court’s role to speculate about whether Canada could have achieved a better deal through negotiations with the United States. We disagree. It is Canada’s onus to prove that the Impugned Provisions are minimally impairing and if its claim is that it had no choice because of US demands then it must prove that by appropriate evidence.”

“Finally, the plaintiffs do not assert, as Canada suggests, a right “to avoid the consequences of choosing to violate US law.” The plaintiffs claim their Charter rights, and they claim that they have been breached by Canadian law for the reasons set out above.”

CANADIAN FATCA IGA LAWSUIT UPDATE: October 3, 2018 Plaintiffs’ Memorandum of Argument Has Been Submitted to Canada’s Federal Court

cross-posted from Brock.

by Stephen J. Kish

Here is the Memorandum of Argument of our Plaintiffs (Gwen and Kazia) for our FATCA IGA legislation lawsuit that was submitted on October 3, 2018 to Canada’s Federal Court. [Note that text is limited to 30 pages.]

The Memorandum can be found HERE.

The gist of our argument (page 12) is that the FATCA IGA legislation is inapplicable to Provincially regulated institutions and violates Sections 7, 8, and 15 of Canada’s Charter of Rights.

The word “sovereignty” is used many times in the document.

Some Excerpts:

“Section 8 of the Charter states: Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure…The Impugned Provisions authorize both a search and a seizure…The plaintiffs and other reasonable hypothetical individuals have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their Accountholder Information…Canada pleads that because the plaintiffs and other US Persons have pre-existing obligations to report certain information to the IRS under US law, their privacy interest in that information is minimal…Canada cannot demonstrate that the searches and seizures authorized by Impugned Provisions are reasonable because (a) they are warrantless and lack any judicial supervision of any kind, (b) it is impossible to test their reliability in achieving their objective, and (c) they almost certainly capture an inordinate number of individuals who have no US tax and reporting obligations…”

— “The state objective underlying the Impugned Provisions is to assist the United States in implementing FATCA and finding US tax evaders and cheats.57 This is not an important Canadian objective.

— “Finally, the court should recognize a novel principle of fundamental justice that Canada will not deny its citizens the protection of Canadian sovereignty…the principle of non-intervention between states is a cornerstone of the international order and intrinsically connected to state sovereignty;88 it is undoubtedly considered by all Canadians to be fundamental to their notion of justice that Canada will not expose them to enforcement of another state’s laws…”


— Canada responds to our Memorandum of Argument by November 21, 2018.

— We reply to Canada by December 7, 2018.

— Trial is held in Vancouver beginning January 28, 2019

Legislative History Reveals FATCA Had Nothing To Do With Collecting Tax Revenue From U.S. Persons With Foreign Accounts Evading Taxes (Part I)

reprinted with permission from Tax Connections

Prior to the enactment of FATCA, Congress and the Executive were in possession of concrete-evidence revealing FATCA would fail to collect any meaningful amount of tax-revenue from U.S. persons evading tax through offshore financial center holdings. Congress should have halted enactment of HIRE – if in fact, FATCA’s purpose was to collect tax-revenue from offshore tax evasion by U.S. persons.

The United States Congress used estimates from the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) as the foundation for supporting the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA), contained in the Hiring Incentives to Restore Employment Act (HIRE).

HIRE was a tax expenditure designed to encourage U.S. small business to hire new employees. HIRE included two tax expenditures of note: a payroll tax exemption to employers and a one-thousand dollar tax credit for employers hiring employees between February of 2010 and January of 2011. [1] FATCA was included in HIRE because the tax revenue collected from FATCA was supposed to offset the tax expenditures authorized by HIRE. [2] The tax revenue FATCA was said to be targeting was from U.S. persons with foreign bank accounts who were evading tax.

In July of 2008, and around the time of the UBS scandal and the Global Financial Crisis the U.S. Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations held a hearing and issued a report entitled “Tax Haven Banks and U.S. Tax Compliance”. [3] The underlying justification for FATCA as a substantial revenue raiser rested on a single statement found in a footnote in the 2008 hearing report: “Each year, the United States loses an estimated $100B in tax revenue due to offshore tax abuses.” [4] In a 2009 follow-up report, the Ways and Means’ Subcommittee on Select Revenue Measures held a hearing entitled: Banking Secrecy Practices and Wealthy Americans. During this hearing, the Senate increased the U.S. tax revenue loss-estimate by 50 percent stating: “Contributing to the annual tax gap are offshore tax schemes responsible for lost tax revenues totaling an estimated $150B each year.” [5] The estimates entered into the record during these hearings measured the offshore tax gap, or the amount of tax revenue[6] that would be collected if offshore tax evasion by U.S. persons holding foreign bank accounts was ended. One month, before HIRE was signed into law by President Obama, new evidence revealed the offshore tax gap was nowhere near as large as previously thought.

On February 23, 2010, the JCT released a report estimating that FATCA would instead, only collect $8.7B over ten-years or $870M per year; a huge difference from last-year’s estimate of $150B per year.[7] Assuming this latest estimate was accurate, the 2008 and 2009 estimates were drastically overinflated – to the tune of over $149B annually! At that point, a reasonable person puts on the breaks and asks questions. At the very least Congress should have engaged in some due diligence to determine why there was such a huge discrepancy. After all, there was plenty of time remaining on the legislative clock,[8] and the report invalidated the policy justification for FATCA. Instead, Congress and President Obama steamrolled FATCA into law in less-than a month after the JCT estimate – almost like, they wanted to hurry to get it in, before someone caught wind that the FATCA had nothing to do with closing the fictitious $150B offshore tax gap, because there was really no tax revenue outstanding. (Part I….To Be Continued)


[1] The Hiring Incentives to Restore Employment (HIRE) Act of 2010 (Pub.L. 111–147, 124 Stat. 71, enacted March 18, 2010, H.R. 2847).

[2] HIRE was originally a $150B dollar incentive package, but the package was reduced to $15B before enactment. It would be interesting to take a look at the timing of the reduction in the HIRE economic incentive package (from $150B to $15B), and compare it with the JCT’s February 23rd estimate, to determine if the reduction in the spending package was a result of learning FATCA would not collect any meaningful amount of tax revenue from offshore accounts, because there was none to collect.

[3] Tax Haven Banks and U.S. Taxpayer Compliance, Senate Permanent Subcomm. on Investigations, Comm. on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, 110th Cong. (2008).

[4] Ibid.

[5] Banking Secrecy Practices and Wealthy Americans, Senate Ways and Means Subcomm. on Select Revenue Measures, 111th Cong. (2009). Emphasis added.

[6] In the U.S., we have a 1099 system, where banks are forced to report interest and dividends. Unless there is some income from the account, it follows that there can be no income tax due from that account. The way to determine whether there is income from an account is to require the accountholder’s financial institution to report on the income from the account.

[7] The 2010 JCT report estimate of $8.7B in offshore tax evasion tax-revenue to be collected over ten-years or $870M per year (median average). It should be noted that the report breaks down the estimate by year. Therefore the median average is not the best number to use in every case. Individual calculations based on empirical data from a particular year proving the current validity of the report will incorporate the amounts listed on the report for each relevant year in question to preserve the integrity of the proposition for which the calculation was intended to support.

[8] The House Ways & Means Committee held the Hearing on Banking Secrecy Practices and Wealthy American Taxpayers on March 31st, 2009. The House passed the original version of HIRE on June 18th, 2009. The JCTs estimate was released on February 23rd, 2010. HIRE passed the Senate the following day on February 24th, 2010 (with amendment). The House followed by adding an amendment on March 4th, 2010 (with amendment) which was approved by the Senate on March 17th, 2010. March 18th, 2010, President Obama signed HIRE into law, and thereby FATCA into law as well. Therefore, there was a full month from the time the JCT report was issued, and the day President Obama signed HIRE (containing FATCA) into law. (Part I….To Be Continued)

New Accidental American Groups

In the last little while, there are 4 new Accidental American groups which appear to be under the umbrella of Fabien Lehavgre’s group ( website , Facebook , Twitter . I don’t believe I have seen any of these mentioned here so want to be sure this information is available so people are aware of it.

For those of you on Facebook and Twitter, kindly share, RT and like these pages. Thanks.



UK Accidental Americans Facebook Page


Italian Accidental Americans Facebook Page

Irish Accidental Americans Facebook Page


Belgian Accidental Americans Facebook Page

Interrupting our regularly scheduled programming: It appears that there is a delay to the June 15, 2018 @USTransitionTax payment

cross-posted from Brock
by USCitizenAbroad

I haven’t had time to really read and digest this Bulletin from U.S. Treasury.

You will have to read and draw your own conclusions, but it appears that paragraph 16 speaks to this issue:

Q16: If an individual fails to timely pay his or her first installment of tax due under section 965(h), will the IRS assess an addition to tax for failure to pay? Will the taxpayer’s requirement to pay all subsequent installments be accelerated under section 965(h)(3)?
Q16: If an individual meets the criteria in this paragraph and pays the total amount of the first installment on or before the due date for the second installment, the IRS will not assess an addition to tax for failure to timely pay the first installment and will not accelerate subsequent installments under section 965(h)(3). An individual with a net tax liability under section 965 is required to report the liability on his or her tax return for the year in which or with which the inclusion year of the deferred foreign income corporation ends and pay the full amount of that liability on the unextended due date of that return, unless the individual elects to pay the liability in eight annual installments pursuant to section 965(h)(1). However, the IRS has determined that, if an individual’s net tax liability under section 965 in the individual’s 2017 taxable year is less than $1 million, the individual makes a timely election under section 965(h), and the individual did not pay the full amount of the first installment by the due date under section 965(h)(2), the failure to make the payment will not result in an acceleration event under section 965(h)(3) so long as the individual pays the full amount of the first installment (and its second installment) by the due date for its 2018 return (determined without regard to extensions). For this purpose, the relevant due date generally is April 15, 2019. In the case of United States citizens or residents whose tax homes and abodes, in a real and substantial sense, are outside the United States and Puerto Rico, and United States citizens and residents in military or naval service on duty, including non-permanent or short term duty, outside the United States and Puerto Rico, the relevant due date is June 17, 2019, which is provided by Treas. Reg. §1.6081-5(a)(5) and (6). Although the IRS will not assess an addition to tax for failure to timely pay the first installment, a taxpayer will be liable for interest on such amount from the due date of the installment. See I.R.C. §6601.

If the IRS sends a taxpayer a notice of an addition to tax for failure to timely pay the first installment, and the taxpayer meets all the conditions for relief described above (including making the required payment by the due date for the second installment due under section 965(h)), the taxpayer should contact the IRS office that issued the notice and request abatement of the addition to tax for failure to timely pay the first installment in accordance with the provisions in these FAQs.

Posted: 06/04/2018

Note that this does NOT apply to all people (appearing to give relief only to small businesses).

Be on the Lookout! Bubblebustin to be on CBC The National- on the #TransitionTax

Update from BB / Bubblebustin

Those in Canada who are potentially affected by the Transition/Repatriation Tax (or not but care about Canada’s sovereignty) need to contact their government representatives and Ministers. As suggested by our MP’s office, start with:

Your Member of Parliament, and

Minister of Foreign Affairs,,
House of Commons
Ottawa, Ontario
K1A 0A6
Telephone: 613-992-5234
Fax: 613-996-9607

Minister of International Trade of Canada
House of Commons
Ottawa, Ontario
K1A 0A6
Telephone: 613-995-4895
Fax: 613-996-6883

Minister of National Revenue
House of Commons
Ottawa, Ontario
K1A 0A6

Minister of Finance
The Honourable William Francis Morneau
Department of Finance Canada
90 Elgin Street
Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0G5
House of Commons
Parliament Buildings
Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0A6
Send a message to the Minister

Daniel Lauzon was quoted in the CBCNational News segment.
Daniel Lauzon works as Dir. Communications for Finance Canada.
Daniel can be reached at 613-369-5696

Should you PM me or post here with the efforts you’ve made, I would like to take them to the reporters with the CBC covering this story in developing the government action (or inaction) side of the story. The press needs to know how Canadians are getting treated by our government and maybe the additional coverage will cause the government to take action.

UPDATE: Here is a direct link to the segment.

Trump’s tax reform affects Canadian residents The National
cbc the nationalThis aired on Monday, April 30. CBC News-The National Interview with Evan Dyerevan dyer

Outstanding new resource on FATCA, CBT, etc. by Andrew Grossman

A new resource on all the issues faced by expats, #AmericansAbroad, #AccidentalAmericans, #US persons, et al:

andy g
FATCA: Citizenship-Based Taxation,
Foreign Asset Reporting Requirements and
American Citizens Abroad

By Andrew Grossman

I don’t think there is anything else which is so extensive or thorough. This is brilliant research and gives reference to many, many court cases. Definitely a resource we are fortunate to have. (Brock SWAT to compliance community: “Watch out!”)

Thank you Andrew Grossman!

It is permanently located on the sidebar at Brock under the Important Information box – Introductory and Essential Material on CBT, FATCA, Citizenship Issues.

Here is the link to the Brock page.
is the original.

Canadian FATCA IGA Litigation Update: Court has fixed Monday January 28, 2019 as trial date


Canadian FATCA IGA Litigation

cross-posted from Isaac Brock Society

    by Stephen Kish

Now appears more likely that we will get to trial in January 2019 in our Canadian FATCA IGA enabling legislation lawsuit in Federal Court.

The Case Management Judge has just advised:

“The hearing of this summary trial motion shall take place before this Court at the Federal Court, 701 West Georgia Street, Vancouver, British Columbia, on Monday, the 28th day of January, 2019, at 9:30 in the forenoon for a maximum duration of five (5) days. The number of hearing days may be reduced depending on the number of preliminary motions.”


“The following timetable shall apply to the motion for summary trial: (a) The Defendant [Mr. Trudeau’s attorneys] shall serve her evidence (with the exception of one expert report) by April 16, 2018. (b) The Defendant shall serve her remaining expert report by April 30, 2018. (c) Notice of any objections to expert reports shall be served by June 15, 2018. (d) A case management conference shall be held, by teleconference, on July 12, 2018 at 1:00 pm (Eastern) to address any motion to strike affidavits. (e) All cross-examinations shall be completed by July 31, 2018. (f) The Plaintiffs [Gwen and Kazia] shall serve and file their complete motion record by September 28, 2018. (g) The Defendant shall serve and file her complete responding motion record by November 16, 2018. (h) The Plaintiffs shall serve and file their reply submissions by December 7, 2018.