*The Clerk of the Court is directed to amend the official caption in

accordance with this Order.

09-3913-cv

Esther Sadowsky Testamentary Trust v. Syron

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

SUMMARY ORDER 

RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1,

2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1.

WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN

ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON

ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.

1 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals

2 for the Second Circuit, held at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan

3 United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of

New York, on the 4th 4 day of March, two thousand eleven.

5

6 PRESENT: WILFRED FEINBERG,

7 BARRINGTON D. PARKER,

8 RICHARD C. WESLEY,

9 Circuit Judges.

10 

11 ESTHER SADOWSKY TESTAMENTARY TRUST, DERIVATIVELY ON BEHALF

12 OF FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTGAGE CORPORATION,

13 Plaintiff,

14 -v.-

15

16 FEDERAL HOUSING FINANCE AGENCY,

17 Plaintiff-Appellee,

18 -v.- 09-3913-cv

19

20 R.S. BASSMAN,

21 Movant-Appellant,

22

23 RICHARD F. SYRON, ANTHONY PISZEL, EUGENE McQUADE, MARTIN

24 BAUMANN, BARBARA T. ALEXANDER, GEOFFREY T. BOISI, MICHELLE

25 ENGLER, RICHARD KARL GOELTZ, SHAUN F. O’MALLEY, THOMAS S.

26 JOHNSON, STEPHEN A. ROSS, WILLIAM M. LEWIS JR., NICHOLAS P.

27 RETSINAS, ROBERT R. GLAUBER,

28 Defendants,

29

30 FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTGAGE CORPORATION,

Nominal Defendant.* 31

32 
2

1 FOR APPELLANT: JONATHAN W. CUNEO (Matthew E. Miller, on

2 the brief), Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca LLP,

3 Washington, DC (Steven E. Fineman &

4 Daniel P. Chiplock, Lieff, Cabraser,

5 Heimann & Bernstein LLP, New York, NY;

6 Richard D. Greenfield, Greenfield &

7 Goodman LLC, New York, NY, on the brief).

8 FOR APPELLEE: HOWARD N. CAYNE (David B. Bergman & Ian

9 S. Hoffman, on the brief), Arnold &

10 Porter LLP, Washington, DC (Stephen E.

11 Hart, Federal Housing Finance Agency,

12 Washington, DC, on the brief).

13

14 Appeal from the United States District Court for the

15 Southern District of New York (Jones, J.).

16

17 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED

18 AND DECREED that the order of the district court denying

19 Appellant’s motion to intervene be AFFIRMED, and that the

20 appeal from the order of substitution be DISMISSED for lack

21 of standing.

22 R.S. Bassman (“Appellant”) appeals from two orders of

23 the United States District Court for the Southern District

24 of New York (Jones, J.) dated May 6, 2009. The first order

25 denied his motion to intervene or appear as amicus curiae;

26 the second substituted the Federal Housing Finance Agency as

27 plaintiff in the action below in place of the Esther

28 Sadowsky Testamentary Trust, which originally brought that

29 action. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the

30 underlying facts, the procedural history, and the issues

31 presented for review.
3

1 First, as regards the motion to intervene, our review

2 of the denial of such motions is well-established and highly

3 deferential. “We review the denial of a motion to intervene

4 . . . for abuse of discretion.” DSI Assocs. LLC v. United

5 States, 496 F.3d 175, 182-83 (2d Cir. 2007). “When a

6 district court denies permissive intervention, our review is

7 particularly deferential. A denial of permissive

8 intervention has virtually never been reversed.” AT&T Corp.

9 v. Sprint Corp., 407 F.3d 560, 561 (2d Cir. 2005) (quotation

10 marks, internal citations and alteration omitted). In

11 keeping with this standard, we have no cause to overturn

12 Judge Jones’s well-reasoned order denying Appellant’s

13 motion.

14 Second, as regards the appeal from the order of

15 substitution, because the district court did not abuse its

16 discretion in denying Appellant’s motion to intervene, he

17 lacks standing to appeal any other order of the district

18 court. See Farmland Dairies v. Comm’r of N.Y. State Dep’t

19 of Agric. & Mkts., 847 F.2d 1038, 1045 (2d Cir. 1998)

20 (“[S]ince we accordingly affirm the order denying

21 intervention, Appellants have no standing to appeal any

22 other order entered by the district court, and their appeals

23 from those orders must be dismissed.”).
4

1 For the foregoing reasons, the order of the district

2 court denying Appellant’s motion to intervene is hereby

3 AFFIRMED. The appeal from the district court’s order of

4 substitution is DISMISSED for lack of standing.

5

6 FOR THE COURT:

7 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk

8

9