SVB Financial Trust v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, as Receiver for Silicon Valley Bank and Silicon Valley Bridge Bank, N.A.

N.D. California

SVB Financial Trust v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, as Receiver for Silicon Valley Bank and Silicon Valley Bridge Bank, N.A.

District Court, N.D. California·Decided February 21, 2025·No. 5:24-cv-01321·Unknown

Opinion

SVB FINANCIAL TRUST, Case No. 24-cv-01321-BLF

Plaintiff, v.

CORPORATION, AS RECEIVER FOR SILICON VALLEY BANK, et al., Defendants. SVB FINANCIAL TRUST, Case No. 23-cv-06543-BLF Plaintiff, v. ORDER CONSOLIDATING CASES CORPORATION, [Re: ECF No. 141] Defendant.

The Court has related SVB Financial Trust v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, in its corporate capacity, No. 5:23-cv-06543-BLF (the “FDIC-C Action”) and SVB Financial Trust v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, as Receiver for Silicon Valley Bank and Silicon Valley Bridge Bank, N.A., No. 5:24-cv-01321-BLF (the “FDIC-R Action”). See FDIC-C Action, ECF 38. Both actions are now assigned to the undersigned Judge. On February 6, 2025, the Court ordered coordinated discovery and set hearings for motions for summary judgment on February 5, 2026, for both actions. See FDIC-R Action, ECF 157. Before the Court is SVB Financial Trust’s (“Trust”) motion to consolidate the FDIC-C Action and the FDIC-R Action. See FDIC-R Action, ECF 141. The FDIC-C and the FDIC-Rs oppose. See id. at ECF 151, 154. The Trust filed a reply. See id. at ECF 159. The Court finds the motion appropriate for disposition without oral argument, and hereby VACATES the hearing on this motion scheduled for May 1, 2025. See Civ. L.R. 7-1(b). The hearing on the Trust’s motion to strike, FDIC-R Action at ECF 160, remains set on May 1, 2025. For the reasons stated below, the Court GRANTS the motion. “If actions before the court involve a common question of law or fact, the court may . . . consolidate the actions.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a)(2). District courts have “broad discretion under [Rule 42(a)] to consolidate cases pending in the same district.” Investors Research Co. v. U.S. Dist. Court for Cent. Dist. of California, 877 F.2d 777, 777 (9th Cir. 1989). “In determining whether or not to consolidate cases, the Court should weigh the interest of judicial convenience against the potential for delay, confusion and prejudice.” Bodri v. Gopro, Inc., 2016 WL 1718217, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 28, 2016) (quotation marks omitted) (quoting Zhu v. UCBH Holdings, Inc., 682 F.Supp.2d 1049, 1052 (N.D. Cal. 2010)). The FDIC-C Action and the FDIC-R Action, both pending before the Court, present similar factual and legal issues, as they each involve the same series of events and underlying facts and are based on the same alleged wrongful conduct. Compare FDIC-R Action, ECF 1 with FDIC-C Action, ECF 92. Specifically, the Trust in both actions alleges that FDIC did not have the authority to deny the Trust access to its deposits (“Account Funds”) at Silicon Valley Bank (“SVB”) in light of the invocation the Systemic Risk Exception in the aftermath of SVB’s collapse. See, e.g., FDIC-R Action, ECF 1 at ¶ 47; FDIC-C Action, ECF 92 at ¶ 6. In both actions, the Trust seeks access to its Account Funds. See FDIC-R Action, ECF 1 at 56; FDIC-C Action, ECF 92 at 50. Because both actions arise from the same nucleus of operative facts, allege similar wrongful conduct, involve overlapping factual and legal issues, and seek similar remedies, the Court finds that consolidation will conserve judicial resources, mitigate confusion, and reduce the time and cost of trying the cases separately. The Court hereby GRANTS the Trust’s motion to consolidate the FDIC-C Action and the FDIC-R Action. 1 asserted in the operative complaints should be tried along with the counterclaims. The Court must 2 first consider whether the counterclaims survive the pending motion to strike. See FDIC-R Action, 3 ECF 160. If those claims survive, the Court will discuss with the parties the proper ordering of the 4 issues to be presented at trial. 5 I. ORDER 6 For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 7 1. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a), the above captioned SVB Financial Trust v. Federal 8 Deposit Insurance Corporation, in its corporate capacity, No. 5:23-cv-06543-BLF and 9 SVB Financial Trust v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, as Receiver for Silicon 10 Valley Bank and Silicon Valley Bridge Bank, N.A., No. 5:24-cv-01321-BLF are 11 CONSOLIDATED for all purposes. 12 2. NO consolidated complaint SHALL be filed and both actions will remain open. The 13 parties SHALL continue to file documents in each case separately. 14 3. The Court hereby RESETS the pre-trial conference in the consolidated action to May 7, 3 15 2026 at 1:30 P.M. PT. 16 4. The Court hereby SETS trial in the consolidate action to begin on July 13, 2026.

Datea: February 21, 2025 19 BETH LABSON FREEMAN 20 United States District Judge 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

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

SVB FINANCIAL TRUST, Case No. 24-cv-01321-BLF

Plaintiff, v.

CORPORATION, AS RECEIVER FOR SILICON VALLEY BANK, et al., Defendants. SVB FINANCIAL TRUST, Case No. 23-cv-06543-BLF Plaintiff, v. ORDER CONSOLIDATING CASES CORPORATION, [Re: ECF No. 141] Defendant.

The Court has related SVB Financial Trust v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, in its corporate capacity, No. 5:23-cv-06543-BLF (the “FDIC-C Action”) and SVB Financial Trust v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, as Receiver for Silicon Valley Bank and Silicon Valley Bridge Bank, N.A., No. 5:24-cv-01321-BLF (the “FDIC-R Action”). See FDIC-C Action, ECF 38. Both actions are now assigned to the undersigned Judge. On February 6, 2025, the Court ordered coordinated discovery and set hearings for motions for summary judgment on February 5, 2026, for both actions. See FDIC-R Action, ECF 157. Before the Court is SVB Financial Trust’s (“Trust”) motion to consolidate the FDIC-C Action and the FDIC-R Action. See FDIC-R Action, ECF 141. The FDIC-C and the FDIC-Rs oppose. See id. at ECF 151, 154. The Trust filed a reply. See id. at ECF 159. The Court finds the motion appropriate for disposition without oral argument, and hereby VACATES the hearing on this motion scheduled for May 1, 2025. See Civ. L.R. 7-1(b). The hearing on the Trust’s motion to strike, FDIC-R Action at ECF 160, remains set on May 1, 2025. For the reasons stated below, the Court GRANTS the motion. “If actions before the court involve a common question of law or fact, the court may . . . consolidate the actions.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a)(2). District courts have “broad discretion under [Rule 42(a)] to consolidate cases pending in the same district.” Investors Research Co. v. U.S. Dist. Court for Cent. Dist. of California, 877 F.2d 777, 777 (9th Cir. 1989). “In determining whether or not to consolidate cases, the Court should weigh the interest of judicial convenience against the potential for delay, confusion and prejudice.” Bodri v. Gopro, Inc., 2016 WL 1718217, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 28, 2016) (quotation marks omitted) (quoting Zhu v. UCBH Holdings, Inc., 682 F.Supp.2d 1049, 1052 (N.D. Cal. 2010)). The FDIC-C Action and the FDIC-R Action, both pending before the Court, present similar factual and legal issues, as they each involve the same series of events and underlying facts and are based on the same alleged wrongful conduct. Compare FDIC-R Action, ECF 1 with FDIC-C Action, ECF 92. Specifically, the Trust in both actions alleges that FDIC did not have the authority to deny the Trust access to its deposits (“Account Funds”) at Silicon Valley Bank (“SVB”) in light of the invocation the Systemic Risk Exception in the aftermath of SVB’s collapse. See, e.g., FDIC-R Action, ECF 1 at ¶ 47; FDIC-C Action, ECF 92 at ¶ 6. In both actions, the Trust seeks access to its Account Funds. See FDIC-R Action, ECF 1 at 56; FDIC-C Action, ECF 92 at 50. Because both actions arise from the same nucleus of operative facts, allege similar wrongful conduct, involve overlapping factual and legal issues, and seek similar remedies, the Court finds that consolidation will conserve judicial resources, mitigate confusion, and reduce the time and cost of trying the cases separately. The Court hereby GRANTS the Trust’s motion to consolidate the FDIC-C Action and the FDIC-R Action. 1 asserted in the operative complaints should be tried along with the counterclaims. The Court must 2 first consider whether the counterclaims survive the pending motion to strike. See FDIC-R Action, 3 ECF 160. If those claims survive, the Court will discuss with the parties the proper ordering of the 4 issues to be presented at trial. 5 I. ORDER 6 For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 7 1. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a), the above captioned SVB Financial Trust v. Federal 8 Deposit Insurance Corporation, in its corporate capacity, No. 5:23-cv-06543-BLF and 9 SVB Financial Trust v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, as Receiver for Silicon 10 Valley Bank and Silicon Valley Bridge Bank, N.A., No. 5:24-cv-01321-BLF are 11 CONSOLIDATED for all purposes. 12 2. NO consolidated complaint SHALL be filed and both actions will remain open. The 13 parties SHALL continue to file documents in each case separately. 14 3. The Court hereby RESETS the pre-trial conference in the consolidated action to May 7, 3 15 2026 at 1:30 P.M. PT. 16 4. The Court hereby SETS trial in the consolidate action to begin on July 13, 2026.

Datea: February 21, 2025 19 BETH LABSON FREEMAN 20 United States District Judge 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

SVB Financial Trust v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, as Receiver for Silicon Valley Bank and Silicon Valley Bridge Bank, N.A., (N.D. Cal. 2025).

Pincite

SVB Financial Trust v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, as Receiver for Silicon Valley Bank and Silicon Valley Bridge Bank, N.A. (SVB Financial Trust v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, as Receiver for Silicon Valley Bank and Silicon Valley Bridge Bank, N.A.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related