Full text
McNamara v. Fidelis
25-1377-cv (L) McNamara v. Fidelis
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.
At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 29th day of January, two thousand twenty-six.
PRESENT: AMALYA L. KEARSE, RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR., STEVEN J. MENASHI, Circuit Judges. ------------------------------------------------------------------ CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU, THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, BY LETITIA JAMES, Nos. 25-1377-cv (L); ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE 25-1379-cv (CON); STATE OF NEW YORK, STATE OF 25-1418-cv (CON) COLORADO, EX REL. PHILIP J. WEISER, ATTORNEY GENERAL, STATE OF DELAWARE, EX REL. KATHLEEN JENNINGS, ATTORNEY GENERAL, STATE OF DELAWARE, THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, THROUGH ATTORNEY GENERAL KWAME
RAOUL, THE STATE OF MINNESOTA, BY ITS ATTORNEY GENERAL KEITH ELLISON, THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, EX REL. JOSHUA H. STEIN, ATTORNEY GENERAL, THE STATE OF WISCONSIN,
Plaintiffs-Appellees,
THOMAS W. MCNAMARA,
Receiver-Appellee,
v.
FIDELIS LEGAL SUPPORT SERVICES, LLC, THE BUSH LAKE TRUST THROUGH TIMOTHY MILLER, TRUSTEE, RELIEF DEFENDANT, VETERIS CAPITAL LLC,
Defendants-Appellants,
STRATFS, LLC, FKA STRATEGIC FINANCIAL SOLUTIONS, LLC, STRATEGIC CLIENT SUPPORT, LLC, FKA PIONEER CLIENT SERVICES, LLC, STRATEGIC CS, LLC, STRATEGIC FS BUFFALO, LLC, STRATEGIC NYC, LLC, BCF CAPITAL, LLC, T FIN, LLC, STRATEGIC CONSULTING, LLC, VERSARA LENDING, LLC, STRATEGIC FAMILY, INC.,
ANCHOR CLIENT SERVICES, LLC, NOW KNOWN AS CS 1 PAAS SERVICES, LLC, BEDROCK CLIENT SERVICES, LLC, BOULDER CLIENT SERVICES, LLC, CANYON CLIENT SERVICES, LLC, CAROLINA CLIENT SERVICES, LLC, GREAT LAKES CLIENT SERVICES, LLC, GUIDESTONE CLIENT SERVICES, LLC, HARBOR CLIENT SERVICES, LLC, HEARTLAND CLIENT SERVICES, LLC, MONARCH CLIENT SERVICES, LLC, NOW KNOWN AS CS 2 PAAS SERVICES, LLC, NEWPORT CLIENT SERVICES, LLC, NORTHSTAR CLIENT SERVICES, LLC, OPTION 1 CLIENT SERVICES, LLC, PIONEER CLIENT SERVICING, LLC, ROCKWELL CLIENT SERVICES, LLC, ROYAL CLIENT SERVICES, LLC, STONEPOINT CLIENT SERVICES, LLC, SUMMIT CLIENT SERVICES, LLC, NOW KNOWN AS CS 3 PAAS SERVICES, LLC, WHITESTONE CLIENT SERVICES, LLC, RYAN SASSON, JASON BLUST, JOHN DOES 1−50, UNIDENTIFIED, DANIEL BLUMKIN, ALBERT IAN BEHAR, STRATEGIC ESOP, RELIEF DEFENDANT, STRATEGIC ESOT, RELIEF DEFENDANT, TWIST FINANCIAL, LLC, DUKE ENTERPRISES, LLC, BLAISE INVESTMENTS, LLC, THE BLUST
FAMILY IRREVOCABLE TRUST THROUGH DONALD J. HOLMGREN, TRUSTEE, JACLYN BLUST, RELIEF DEFENDANT, LIT DEF STRATEGIES, LLC, RELIALIT, LLC, RICHARD K GUSTAFSON II, TIMOTHY F. BURNETTE, MICHELLE GALLAGHER, HEDGEWICK CONSULTING, LLC, CAMERON CHRISTO, RELIEF DEFENDANT, THE BLUST FAMILY 2019 IRREVOCABLE TRUST THROUGH PAUL HULL, JR., TRUSTEE, RELIEF DEFENDANT,
Defendants,
CLEAR CREEK LEGAL, LLC, CREDIT ADVOCATES LAW FIRM, LLC, GREENSTONE LEGAL GROUP, BRADON ELLIS LAW FIRM LLC, HAILSTONE LEGAL GROUP, HALLOCK AND ASSOCIATES, HARBOR LEGAL GROUP, ANCHOR LAW FIRM, PLLC, BEDROCK LEGAL GROUP, BOULDER LEGAL GROUP, CANYON LEGAL GROUP, LLC, GREAT LAKES LAW FIRM, HEARTLAND LEGAL GROUP, LEVEL ONE LAW, MEADOWBROOK LEGAL GROUP, MONARCH LEGAL GROUP, NEWPORT LEGAL GROUP, LLC, NORTHSTAR LEGAL GROUP, OPTION 1 LEGAL, PIONEER LAW
FIRM P.C., ROCKWELL LEGAL GROUP, SPRING LEGAL GROUP, ROYAL LEGAL GROUP, SLATE LEGAL GROUP, STONEPOINT LEGAL GROUP, THE LAW FIRM OF DEREK WILLIAMS, LLC, WHITSTONE LEGAL GROUP, WYOLAW, LLC, CHINN LEGAL GROUP, LLC, LEIGH LEGAL GROUP, PLLC, HALLOCK & ASSOCIATES LLC, GUSTAFSON CONSUMER LAW GROUP, LLC, MICHEL LAW, LLC, THE LAW OFFICE OF MELISSA MICHEL LLC, MOORE LEGAL GROUP, LLC, CIBC BANK USA, VALLEY NATIONAL BANK,
Intervenors.
v.
BDC GROUP LLC, TWO SQUARE ENTERPRISES, INC.,
Movants-Appellants. * ------------------------------------------------------------------
FOR APPELLANTS: ALEX H. LOOMIS, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, Boston, MA (Stephen E. Frank, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, Boston, MA, Alec A. Levy, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart &
* The Clerk of Court is directed to amend the caption as set forth above.
Sullivan, LLP, Washington, DC, on the brief)
FOR RECEIVER-APPELLEE: THOMAS S. D’ANTONIO (James C. Thoman, William G. Fassuliotis, on the brief), Hodgson Russ LLP, Rochester, NY
Appeals from orders of the United States District Court for the Western District of New York (Michael J. Roemer, Magistrate Judge).
UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED,
AND DECREED that the appeals are DISMISSED.
Appellants Fidelis Legal Support Services, LLC, the Bush Lake Trust, Two Square Enterprises, Inc., BDC Group LLC, and Veteris Capital LLC appeal from two orders of the United States District Court for the Western District of New York (Roemer, M.J.) that they contend expand the scope of a receivership. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and the record of prior proceedings, to which we refer only as necessary to explain our decision to dismiss.
In January 2024 the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and seven state Attorneys General (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) sued several individuals and entities for allegedly violating the Federal Trade Commission’s Telemarketing Sales Rule *7 and related federal and state laws. Plaintiffs sought a temporary restraining order (“TRO”) and a preliminary injunction (“PI”). The District Court granted Plaintiffs’ application for a TRO, issued an asset-freeze injunction, and appointed Thomas W. McNamara as receiver (the “Receiver”). The Receiver was authorized to assume control of all “Receivership Defendants,” defined in the TRO to encompass the corporate defendants and certain relief defendants, as well as their “subsidiaries, affiliates, divisions, successors, and assigns.” Spec. App’x 8–9.
Following entry of the TRO, the defendants consented to resolution of the pending motion for a PI by a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), and the district judge referred the motion to Magistrate Judge Michael J. Roemer. On March 4, 2024, Judge Roemer issued a PI that reaffirmed the terms of the TRO and continued the receivership. This Court upheld the PI on appeal. See Consumer Fin. Prot. Bureau v. Sasson, No. 24-697-CV, 2025 WL 1554514, at *1–2 (2d Cir. June 2, 2025).
Acting pursuant to his authority under the TRO and the PI, the Receiver determined that Appellants were “Receivership Defendants” as defined in the TRO and the PI and were therefore subject to the receivership. Appellants *8 challenged their designation as “Receivership Defendants.” In the two orders at issue in this appeal, Judge Roemer rejected Appellants’ challenges and affirmed the determination of the Receiver that Appellants were subject to the receivership, concluding that Appellants fit the definition of “Receivership Defendants” in the TRO and PI. See Spec. App’x 118–19, 137–40.
Appellants argue that we have jurisdiction to review Judge Roemer’s orders pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1292(a)(1) and (a)(2) because the orders “grant[]” or “modify[]” an injunction and “appoint[]” a receiver. We disagree. “As a general rule, we lack jurisdiction to hear an appeal unless the decision is, or is embodied in, an order or judgment that is ‘final’ within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1291.” Swede v. Rochester Carpenters Pension Fund, 467 F.3d 216, 219 (2d Cir. 2006) (quotation marks omitted). Sections 1292(a)(1) and (a)(2) are “narrowlydrawn exceptions to the finality requirement.” Ibeto Petrochemical Indus. Ltd. v. M/T Beffen, 475 F.3d 56, 61 (2d Cir. 2007). Orders that merely interpret or clarify an earlier appealable order “do not create appellate jurisdiction.” See JLM Couture, Inc. v. Gutman, 91 F.4th 91, 100 (2d Cir. 2024). Here, Judge Roemer concluded that Appellants already fell within the scope of the previously created receivership because they were “successors,” “assigns,” and “affiliates” of *9 entities specifically identified in the TRO and PI. See Spec. App’x 118–19, 137–38. The orders were thus “merely interpretive, and did not change the meaning of” the TRO or PI. In re Tronox Inc., 855 F.3d 84, 98 (2d Cir. 2017) (quotation marks omitted).
Appellants also petition this Court for a writ of mandamus. Mandamus is a “drastic” remedy, “to be invoked only in extraordinary situations.” Kerr v. United States Dist. Court for Northern Dist. of Cal., 426 U.S. 394, 402 (1976). We decline to invoke it where, as here, the movants have benefitted from an extensive review process in the district court, and have otherwise failed to demonstrate “exceptional circumstances amounting to a judicial usurpation of power or a clear abuse of discretion.” In re Roman Cath. Diocese of Albany, N.Y., Inc., 745 F.3d 30, 35 (2d Cir. 2014) (quotation marks omitted).
For the foregoing reasons, the appeals are DISMISSED.
FOR THE COURT: Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk of Court