* 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**

**R ULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT**  **. C**  **ITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER J** **ANUARY 1,**  **2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY**  **F EDERAL**  **R ULE OF**  **A PPELLATE**  **P ROCEDURE**  **32.1 AND THIS COURT**  **’ S**  **L OCAL**  **R ULE**  **32.1.1. W** **HEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT ,**  **A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE F**  **EDERAL A** **PPENDIX 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**  **.** At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals 1 for the Second Circuit, held at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan 2 United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of 3 New York, on the 4 thday of March, two thousand eleven. 4 5 PRESENT: WILFRED FEINBERG, 6 BARRINGTON D. PARKER, 7 RICHARD C. WESLEY, 8 Circuit Judges

. 9 10 ESTHER SADOWSKY TESTAMENTARY TRUST, DERIVATIVELY ON BEHALF 11 OF FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTGAGE CORPORATION, 12 Plaintiff , 13 -v.- 14 15 FEDERAL HOUSING FINANCE AGENCY, 16 Plaintiff-Appellee , 17 -v.- 09-3913-cv 18 19 R.S. BASSMAN, 20 Movant-Appellant, 21 22 RICHARD F. SYRON, ANTHONY PISZEL, EUGENE McQUADE, MARTIN 23 BAUMANN, BARBARA T. ALEXANDER, GEOFFREY T. BOISI, MICHELLE 24 ENGLER, RICHARD KARL GOELTZ, SHAUN F. O’MALLEY, THOMAS S. 25 JOHNSON, STEPHEN A. ROSS, WILLIAM M. LEWIS JR., NICHOLAS P. 26 RETSINAS, ROBERT R. GLAUBER, 27 Defendants , 28 29 FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTGAGE CORPORATION, 30 Nominal Defendant

. * 31 322 FOR APPELLANT: JONATHAN W. CUNEO (Matthew E. Miller, on 1 the brief ), Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca LLP, 2 Washington, DC (Steven E. Fineman & 3 Daniel P. Chiplock, Lieff, Cabraser, 4 Heimann & Bernstein LLP, New York, NY; 5 Richard D. Greenfield, Greenfield & 6 Goodman LLC, New York, NY, on the brief ). 7 FOR APPELLEE: HOWARD N. CAYNE (David B. Bergman & Ian 8 S. Hoffman, on the brief ), Arnold & 9 Porter LLP, Washington, DC (Stephen E. 10 Hart, Federal Housing Finance Agency, 11 Washington, DC, on the brief ). 12 13 Appeal from the United States District Court for the 14 Southern District of New York (Jones, J. ). 15 16 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED 17 AND DECREED that the order of the district court denying 18 Appellant’s motion to intervene be AFFIRMED, and that the 19 appeal from the order of substitution be DISMISSED for lack 20 of standing. 21 R.S. Bassman (“Appellant”) appeals from two orders of 22 the United States District Court for the Southern District 23 of New York (Jones, J. ) dated May 6, 2009. The first order 24 denied his motion to intervene or appear as amicus curiae ; 25 the second substituted the Federal Housing Finance Agency as 26 plaintiff in the action below in place of the Esther 27 Sadowsky Testamentary Trust, which originally brought that 28 action. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the 29 underlying facts, the procedural history, and the issues 30 presented for review. 313 First, as regards the motion to intervene, our review 1 of the denial of such motions is well-established and highly 2 deferential. “We review the denial of a motion to intervene 3 . . . for abuse of discretion.” DSI Assocs. LLC v. United 4
States , 496 F.3d 175, 182-83 (2d Cir. 2007). “When a 5 district court denies permissive intervention, our review is 6 particularly deferential. A denial of permissive 7 intervention has virtually never been reversed.” AT&T Corp. 8 v. Sprint Corp. , 407 F.3d 560, 561 (2d Cir. 2005) (quotation 9 marks, internal citations and alteration omitted). In 10 keeping with this standard, we have no cause to overturn 11 Judge Jones’s well-reasoned order denying Appellant’s 12 motion. 13 Second, as regards the appeal from the order of 14 substitution, because the district court did not abuse its 15 discretion in denying Appellant’s motion to intervene, he 16 lacks standing to appeal any other order of the district 17

court. See Farmland Dairies v. Comm’r of N.Y. State Dep’t 18 of Agric. & Mkts. , 847 F.2d 1038, 1045 (2d Cir. 1998) 19 (“[S]ince we accordingly affirm the order denying 20 intervention, Appellants have no standing to appeal any 21 other order entered by the district court, and their appeals 22 from those orders must be dismissed.”). 234 For the foregoing reasons, the order of the district 1 court denying Appellant’s motion to intervene is hereby 2 AFFIRMED. The appeal from the district court’s order of 3 substitution is DISMISSED for lack of standing. 4
5 FOR THE COURT: 6 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk 7 8 9