Doc 34 Plaint Rply to Deut

8/7/2019 Doc 34 Plaint Rply to Deut

1/4

- 1 -

PLAINTIFF BRIAN W DAVIES REPLY TO DEFENDANT DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANYSOBJECTION TO PLAINTIFFS RJN #4 SUPOENA REQUEST AND RESPONSE FROM DEUTSCHE BANKNATIONAL TRUST COMPANY AS DOCKET 54 FILED 11/15/2010 IN RE: DAVIES CASE NO. 6:10-37900

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Gary Hare, ESQ. (Bar No. #86938)Diane Beall, ESQ. (Bar No. #86877)

Global Capital Law, PC 8700 Warner Avenue Ste 200Fountain Valley, California 92708

Phone: (714) 907-4182

Fax: (714) 907-4175Email: [email protected]

Attorney for Debtor and Plaintiff,Brian W Davies

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

In re:

BRIAN W DAVIES,Debtor.

_______________________________

BRIAN W DAVIES,Plaintiff,

vs.

DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUSTCOMPANY AS TRUSTEE OF THE

RESIDENTIAL ASSET SECUITIZATIONTRUST 2007-A5, MORTGAGE PASS

THROUGH SERIES 2007-E, UNDER THEPOOLING AND SERVICING

AGREEMENT DATED MARCH 1, 2007,ITS ASSIGNS AND/OR SUCCESSORS IN

INTEREST; and all persons claiming by,through, or under such persons, all persons

unknown, claiming any legal or equitableright, title, estate, lien, or interest in the

property described in the complaint adverse toplaintiffs title thereto; and DOES 1-150,

Inclusive;Defendant.

)

))

))

))

))

))

))

))

))

))

))

))

))

)

Chapter 7

Bankruptcy Case No. 6:10-bk-37900-TD

Adv. Proceeding No. 6:11-ap-01001-TD

PLAINTIFFS REPLY TO DEUTSCHEBANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANYS

OBJECTION TO PLAINTIFFS REQUESTFOR JUDICIAL NOTICE #4

SUBPOENA REQUEST TO ANDRESPONSE FROM DEUTSCHE BANK

NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY

Date: May 3, 2011Time: 1:30 p.m.

Dept: 5CJudge: HON. SCOTT C. CLARKSON

Case 6:11-ap-01001-SC Doc 34 Filed 04/27/11 Entered 04/27/11 13:48:24 DescMain Document Page 1 of 4


2/4

- 2 -


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

TO ALL PARTIES, THE COURT AND ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff Brian W. Davies, through his counsel of record herby reply to Defendant

Deutsche Bank National Trust Companys belated objection to Plaintiffs request for

Judicial Notice that was filed and served on March 14, 2011 as AP docket #15.

Defendant has had many opportunities to object timely on several of the numerous

responses proffer in this Court.

II. JUDICIAL NOTICE IS PROPER BECAUSE THEY PRODUCED THE

DOCUMENTS AS PART OF THIS FEDERAL BANKRUPTCY PROCEDURE

//

Defendants argument in opposition using Federal Rules of Evidence 201 is

ironically cited as:

//

A judicially noticed fact must be one not subject to reasonable dispute in that

it is either (1) generally known within the territorial jurisdiction of the trial court or (2)

capable of accurate and ready determination by resort to sources whose accuracy

cannot reasonably be questioned.

Why would Deutsche Bank National Trust Company dispute the facts, they were

the ones who produced the documents? Furthermore, Rule 201(c)states the court may

take judicial notice, whether requested or not.

Defendant Deutsche Bank National Trust Company wants another Redo attempt

and the Court should disregard another belated request. The adjudicated facts have

already determined that Deutsche Bank National Trust Company has NO

STANDING.

The Honorable Judge Thomas B. Donovan has already made findings of fact

Bankruptcy Case No. 6:10-37900 [Docket 64] Order Denying Motion for Relief from

Automatic Stay filed with changes by the Court on January 7, 2011 (entered nearly 6



3/4

- 3 -


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

weeks after the hearing). Defendant Deutsche Bank National Trust Company has had

adequate time in which to revise any documents, and additional time to appeal. This

Defendant continues to defy the court rules and desires another redo.

The request for Judicial Notice # 4 is part of the associated bankruptcy case filed

on November 12, 2010 [Docket 54] and deals with the same issues of chain of title for

the Deed of Trust along with the note. (Exhibit 1) The response deals directly with the

issues at bar. (Exhibit 2)

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 45 (d) (1) (A) (A) A person responding to a

subpoena to produce documents must produce them as they are kept in the ordinary

course of business or must organize and label them to correspond to the categories in

the demand.

Wherefore Plaintiff requests this objection to be overruled and these documents

which Defendant produced become part of the court record.

Dated: April 27, 2011 GLOBAL CAPITAL LAW, PC

____________________________________GARY HARE,Attorney for BRIAN W DAVIESPlaintiff and Debtor



4/4

Documents

Doc 34 Plaint Rply to Deut