Antonio Leon SUAREZ, Pauline Suarez, David M. Chu, Estate of Nicholas J. Andrelli & Thu T. Pham, Hone Thach, Johnny H. Le, Kiet Q. Bui, Longchau Nguyen, Quang Do, Eun H. Park, Hoa V. Nguyen, Sang Eun Park, Sourivan Munpanthavong, Trang Truong, Judy Groverman, Art Groverman, Tuan Hai Dang, Son P. Dang, Daniel Trevor, Ehnoi N. Ienemanyvong, Amath Soulamany, Kimha Ly, Nam Choi, Kyung Kyu, Ronnie A. Lyles, as Individual and Trustee for Lewis Grace Financial LLC Trust, as Individual and Trustee for Soloman Cove Financial LLC Trust, as Individual and Trustee for Douglas Forrest Financial LLC Trust, as Individual and Trustee for Horton Bixby Financial LLC Trust, Thanh Ngo Deely, Uyen T. Thai, Trang Xuan Truong, Xuan Trinh Truong, Yuri Imuta Lee, Kimoanh Dang, Phuong H. Ly, Phuong Nguyen, Thuan Vu, Voneta Sengchanh, Cam Hoang, Tho Thi Nguyen, Laurie A. Puccio, Valuna G. Munpanthavong, Ngoc A. Le, Marco A. Romero, Huyen Huyen Nguyen, Pauline T. Thai, Thong Ngo, Plaintiffs-Appellants, Thuan Tran, Chris R. Lamont, as Individual and Trustee for Cambridge Avenue 2253 Land Trust, David A. Phillips, as Trustees for David A. Phillips & Ingrid Phillips Family Trust, Ida L. Spector, Trustee of the Revanna Trust Dated November 6, 1992, Ronnie A. Lyles, as Individual and Trustee for Cordell Grant Financial LLC Trust, Theresa Codilla, Jay Codilla, Ronnie A. Lyles, Jay Codilla, as Individual and Trustee for the Codilla Family Trust, Robin Cole, Ronda L. Gamez, as Individual and Trustee for Ronda Lee Living Trust, Lillian H. Hennegan, Plaintiffs, v. CITIBANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, HSBC Bank USA, National Association, US Bank, N.A., Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Bank of New York, aka Bank of New York Mellon By Merger and/or Acquisition, Defendants-Appellees, Structured Asset Mortgage Investments II Inc., Trust 2006-AR4, Alternative Loan Trust, 2007-7t2, CWMBS, Inc., CHL Mortgage Passthrough Trust 2005-9, Bear Stearns Asset Backed Securities I LLC, Trust 2006-3 2006-AC1, Lehman XS Trust, 2005-1 , Mortgage 2007-7n, Mortgage 2005-5n, American Home Mortgage Investment Trust, 2007-a, Harborview Mortgage Loan Trust, 2006-13, Residential Funding Mortgage Securities I, Inc., 20007-s5, Encore Credit Receivables Trust, 2005-4, IXIS Real Estate Capital Trust, 20069-HE3, His Asset Securitization Corporation, 2007-WF1, Renaissance Home Equity Loan Trust, Renaissance Home Equity Loan Trust 2006-2, Deutsche Alt-a Securities Mortgage Loan Trust, 2007-OA4, 2007-1,, Adjustable Rate Mortgage Trust, Loan, Series 2007-10, GSAA Home Equity Trust, 2006-17, 2006-9, Banc of America Funding Corporation, 2007-a, BAFC 2004-b, BAFC 2007-3, Wells Fargo, Backed Securities 20064 Trust, GSR Mortgage Loan Trust, 2005-AR3, Prime Mortgage Trust, 2007-3, Bear Stearns Alt-a Trust, 2005-10, 2005-9, 2006-4, Bear Stearns Asset Backed Securities I LLC, Trust 2006-AC1, Adjustable Rate Mortgage Trust, 2006-3, MASTR Asset Backed Securities Trust, 2006-WMC1, First Franklin Mortgage Loan Trust, Series 2005-FF9, 2004-FFH3, Greenpoint Mortgage Funding Trust, MTA Trust 2005-AR3, Series 2005-AR4, Series 2006-AR3, Bank of New York Mellon, CWALT, Inc., Alternative Loan Trust 2005-62, Alternative Loan Trust 2005-36, Alternative Loan Trust 2005-J3, Alternative Loan Trust 2007-OA4, Alternative Loan Trust 2006-23CB, Alternative Loan Trust 2005-1CB, Defendants, 693 F. App'x 43

SUMMARY ORDER Plaintiffs-appellants are individuals who own or previously owned homes subject to foreclosure proceedings. Their complaint alleges that the defendants-appellees, who are trustees of mortgage loan trusts, violated the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (“RICO”) Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961-68, by asserting ownership of the plaintiffs’ mortgages despite knowing that those mortgages had been transferred into the trusts outside the time-frame mandated by the trusts’ Pooling and Servicing Agreements (“PSAs”), rendering the transfers void. The District Court dismissed the complaint on the ground that plaintiffs lacked both

Article III standing and prudential standing to bring the suit. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and the procedural history of the case, to which we refer only as necessary to explain our decision to affirm. We conclude that the District Court properly dismissed the complaint, and we affirm the judgment for substantially the reasons stated by the District Court in its October 19, 2015' opinion. As appellants concede, our Court has previously addressed squarely and rejected appellants’ arguments under circumstances not materially different from those presented here. See Rajamin v.

Deutsche Bank Nat’l Trust Co., 757 F.3d 79 (2d Cir. 2014). We decline appellants’ request that we revisit Rajamin’s holdings (which this panel in any event is not empowered to do) or certify to the New York Court of Appeals questions addressed by Rajamin. 5ft 5ft * We have considered all of appellants’ remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the October 19, 2015 judgment of the District Court.