ANH NGUYET TRAN, Christina T. Soulamany & Lai Somchanmavong, Colleen Dwyer, Elaine Phan, Hoa V. Nguyen, Huan N. Tran, Hung V. Nguyen, Kay Aphayvong, Kim-Thuy Nguyen, Mia L. Pham, Minh A. Trinh, Nhieu Tran, Patricia Gunness, Patricia S. Adkins, fka Patricia S. Olson, Peter Delamos, Peter Ha & Tina Le, Phokham Soulamany & Phetsanou Soulamany, Sarah M. Young, Suong Ngoc Nguyen & Long Le, Thai Christie & Sequoia Holdings L.L.C., Thiem Ngo, Thuan T. Tran, Thu Lam Tran, Thuy-Trang Nguyen, Tri Thien Nguyen, Tuy T. Hoang & Thomas T. Hoang, Tuyen T. Thai, Tuyetlan T. Tran, Uyen T. Thai & Thong Ngo, Van Le fka Van T. Nguyen, Vu Dinh, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. BANK OF NEW YORK, now known as Bank of New York Mellon by merger and/or acquisition, Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, HSBC Bank USA, N.A., U.S. Bank National Association, Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, Defendants-Appellees, 610 F. App'x 82

AMENDED

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.