Anh Nguyet Tran v. Bank of New York

Second Circuit

Anh Nguyet Tran v. Bank of New York

592 F. App'x 24

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedJanuary 30, 2015

Docket14-1224-cv

StatusUnpublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 592 F. App'x 24 (Anh Nguyet Tran v. Bank of New York) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Anh Nguyet Tran v. Bank of New York, 592 F. App'x 24 (2d Cir. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

SUMMARY ORDER

Plaintiffs-Appellants appeal from the March 26, 2014 judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Patterson, J.) granting the motion to dismiss of Defendants-Ap-pellees on the basis that Plaintiffs lacked standing to bring any claim based on alleged breaches of Pooling and Servicing Agreements to which they were neither parties nor intended third-party beneficiaries. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, procedural history, and specification of issues for review.

“We review the district court’s grant of a motion to dismiss de novo, but may affirm on any basis supported by the record.” Coulter v. Morgan Stanley & Co., 753 F.3d 361, 366 (2d Cir.2014). We accept the factual allegations in plaintiffs’ complaint as true for purposes of reviewing the district court’s dismissal for failure to state a claim, or for lack of standing, to the extent that the dismissal was based on the pleadings. Rajamin v. Deutsche Bank Nat’l Trust Co., 757 F.3d 79, 81 (2d Cir.2014).

Here, Plaintiffs do not identify any basis for distinguishing their claim from the claim at issue in Rajamin, where this Court recently held that mortgagors, who were not trust beneficiaries, lacked constitutional and prudential standing to bring an action based on trustee conduct that allegedly contravened the trust instrument. Id. at 88. Rather, Plaintiffs request that we both reverse the district court and overrule, overturn, or modify our decision in Rajamin because Plaintiffs assert that those decisions improperly construed New York Estates, Powers, and Trusts Law § 7-2.4. It is well established that we are “bound by the decisions of prior panels until such time as they are overruled either by an en banc panel of our Court or by the Supreme Court.” United States v. Wilkerson, 361 F.3d 717, 732 (2d Cir.2004). We therefore decline the invitation to revisit this Court’s sound reasoning in Rajamin.

We have considered the remainder of Plaintiffs’ arguments and find them to be without merit. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court hereby is AFFIRMED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

SUMMARY ORDER

Plaintiffs-Appellants appeal from the March 26, 2014 judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Patterson, J.) granting the motion to dismiss of Defendants-Ap-pellees on the basis that Plaintiffs lacked standing to bring any claim based on alleged breaches of Pooling and Servicing Agreements to which they were neither parties nor intended third-party beneficiaries. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, procedural history, and specification of issues for review.

“We review the district court’s grant of a motion to dismiss de novo, but may affirm on any basis supported by the record.” Coulter v. Morgan Stanley & Co., 753 F.3d 361, 366 (2d Cir.2014). We accept the factual allegations in plaintiffs’ complaint as true for purposes of reviewing the district court’s dismissal for failure to state a claim, or for lack of standing, to the extent that the dismissal was based on the pleadings. Rajamin v. Deutsche Bank Nat’l Trust Co., 757 F.3d 79, 81 (2d Cir.2014).

Here, Plaintiffs do not identify any basis for distinguishing their claim from the claim at issue in Rajamin, where this Court recently held that mortgagors, who were not trust beneficiaries, lacked constitutional and prudential standing to bring an action based on trustee conduct that allegedly contravened the trust instrument. Id. at 88. Rather, Plaintiffs request that we both reverse the district court and overrule, overturn, or modify our decision in Rajamin because Plaintiffs assert that those decisions improperly construed New York Estates, Powers, and Trusts Law § 7-2.4. It is well established that we are “bound by the decisions of prior panels until such time as they are overruled either by an en banc panel of our Court or by the Supreme Court.” United States v. Wilkerson, 361 F.3d 717, 732 (2d Cir.2004). We therefore decline the invitation to revisit this Court’s sound reasoning in Rajamin.

We have considered the remainder of Plaintiffs’ arguments and find them to be without merit. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court hereby is AFFIRMED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

592 F. App'x 24, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/anh-nguyet-tran-v-bank-of-new-york-ca2-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack