I would call this law firm immediately and have them withdraw this request.

With GREAT thanks to Simonee Cromwell. She was able to get a friend in Fresno to go to the court, pay 50 cents a page and then go and get this faxed to her all within the last few hours.

Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP
101 Park Avenue
New York, NY 10110-0060
Tel. 212.309.6000
Fax: 212.309.6001
www.morganlewis,com

Bernard J. Garbutt Ill
(212) 309·6084
bgarbult@morganlewis.com

October 7, 2013

Chief Justice Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye
and the Associate Justices
Supreme Court of California
350 McAllister Street
San Francisco, CA 94 102-4 797

Re: Request for Depublication
Glaski v, Bank of America, N.A., et al.,
California Court of Appeal, Fifth Appellate District – Ga5e No. FOG455<).

To; The Honorable Chief Justice and Associate Justices of the California Supreme Court

We represent Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, solely in its capacity as trustee (the
“Trustee”) of the relevant residential mortgage-backed (“RMBS”) trusts, as a defendant in the
cases Rajamin, Deutsche Bank Nat’ l Trust Co., No. 10-cv-7531 (LTS) (S.D.N .Y. ), on appeal,
13-1614-cv (2c\ Cir.) (“Rajamin”) and Tran. v. Bank of New York, No. 13-cv-580 (RPP)
(S.D.N.Y.) (“Tran”).

With all due respect to the Court of Appeal, Fifth District, California (the “Court”), we write to
request depublication of the Court’s opinion in Glaski v. Bank Of America, N.A .. et al., 218 Cal.
App. 4111 1079, 2013 WL 4037310, issued on July 31, 2013 and certified for publication on
August 8, 2013 (the “Opinion”). This request is made pursuant to Rule of Court 8.1125.

Background

In Glaski, the plaintiff mortgagor brought a wrongful foreclosure claim against an RMBS
trustee, among others, relating to the no11″judicial foreclosure upon plaintiffs mortgage loan. In
sum, the plaintiff alleged that the “attempted” assignment of his mortgage loan to an RMBS trust
was made after the closing date in the pooling and servicing agreement (the “PSA”) for that
RMBS trust, and, therefore, the assignment was ineffective. The plaintiff argued that this
deprived the party that had foreclosed upon his mo1tgage loan of the standing to do so because it
was not the true owner of his loan. The trial court dismissed The of plaintiff’s claims. The Court
reversed.

…