Farella Braun + Martel LLP v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation as Receiver for Silicon Valley Bank

N.D. California

Farella Braun + Martel LLP v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation as Receiver for Silicon Valley Bank

DecidedAugust 13, 2024

Docket3:24-cv-01306

StatusUnknown

This text of Farella Braun + Martel LLP v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation as Receiver for Silicon Valley Bank (Farella Braun + Martel LLP v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation as Receiver for Silicon Valley Bank) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, N.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Farella Braun + Martel LLP v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation as Receiver for Silicon Valley Bank, (N.D. Cal. 2024).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 FARELLA BRAUN + MARTEL LLP, Case No. 24-cv-01306-SI

8 Plaintiff, ORDER LISTING QUESTIONS FOR 9 v. THE PARTIES TO ADDRESS AT THE AUGUST 16, 2024 HEARING 10 FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION, Re: Dkt. No. 27 11 Defendant. 12 13 This case is set for an August 16, 2024 hearing on defendants’ motion to dismiss and strike 14 portions of plaintiff’s complaint.1 The Court would like the parties to be prepared to address the 15 following questions at the August 16, 2024 hearing: 16 17 • The FDIC contends that neither pre- nor post-judgment interest can be awarded because of 18 the FDIC’s sovereign immunity, but Far West Federal Bank only speaks specifically about 19 pre-judgment interest. Does Far West Federal Bank also prevent an award of post-judgment 20 interest? Why or why not? What legal authority can the parties point to on this issue? 21 • What is defendant’s legal authority for its argument that plaintiff must allege the existence 22 of a contract between it and Silicon Valley Bank to state a claim for declaratory relief? 23 • Sharpe v. F.D.I.C., 126 F.3d 1147 (9th Cir. 1997) held that “claims for rescission and 24 declaratory relief must fall under an exception to § 1821(j) in order to survive.” How does 25 Sharpe apply to this case? What is the exception to § 1821(j) under which this case falls? 26

27 1 An August 16, 2024 hearing is also set for the same motion in the nearly identical case 24- 1 If the FIDC takes the position that Sharpe precludes a claim for declaratory relief here, how 2 does the FDIC square that position with the fact that the Notice of Partial Allowance plaintiff 3 received from the FDIC states: “Pursuant to 12 U.S.C. Section 1821(d)(6), if you do not 4 agree with this disallowance, you have the right to file a lawsuit on your claim[.]”? Is 5 § 1821(d)(6) an exception to § 1821(j)? Ifso, what is the legal authority for this? 6 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 Dated: August 13, 2024 | 9 SUSAN ILLSTON 10 United States District Judge 11 a 12

15 16

it

4 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

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

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 FARELLA BRAUN + MARTEL LLP, Case No. 24-cv-01306-SI

8 Plaintiff, ORDER LISTING QUESTIONS FOR 9 v. THE PARTIES TO ADDRESS AT THE AUGUST 16, 2024 HEARING 10 FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION, Re: Dkt. No. 27 11 Defendant. 12 13 This case is set for an August 16, 2024 hearing on defendants’ motion to dismiss and strike 14 portions of plaintiff’s complaint.1 The Court would like the parties to be prepared to address the 15 following questions at the August 16, 2024 hearing: 16 17 • The FDIC contends that neither pre- nor post-judgment interest can be awarded because of 18 the FDIC’s sovereign immunity, but Far West Federal Bank only speaks specifically about 19 pre-judgment interest. Does Far West Federal Bank also prevent an award of post-judgment 20 interest? Why or why not? What legal authority can the parties point to on this issue? 21 • What is defendant’s legal authority for its argument that plaintiff must allege the existence 22 of a contract between it and Silicon Valley Bank to state a claim for declaratory relief? 23 • Sharpe v. F.D.I.C., 126 F.3d 1147 (9th Cir. 1997) held that “claims for rescission and 24 declaratory relief must fall under an exception to § 1821(j) in order to survive.” How does 25 Sharpe apply to this case? What is the exception to § 1821(j) under which this case falls? 26

27 1 An August 16, 2024 hearing is also set for the same motion in the nearly identical case 24- 1 If the FIDC takes the position that Sharpe precludes a claim for declaratory relief here, how 2 does the FDIC square that position with the fact that the Notice of Partial Allowance plaintiff 3 received from the FDIC states: “Pursuant to 12 U.S.C. Section 1821(d)(6), if you do not 4 agree with this disallowance, you have the right to file a lawsuit on your claim[.]”? Is 5 § 1821(d)(6) an exception to § 1821(j)? Ifso, what is the legal authority for this? 6 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 Dated: August 13, 2024 | 9 SUSAN ILLSTON 10 United States District Judge 11 a 12

15 16

it

4 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Farella Braun + Martel LLP v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation as Receiver for Silicon Valley Bank, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/farella-braun-martel-llp-v-federal-deposit-insurance-corporation-as-cand-2024.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack