SVB Financial Trust v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation

Opinion

1 2 6 7 SVB FINANCIAL TRUST, Case No. 23-cv-06543-BLF

8 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANING DEFENDANT’S 9 v. ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION FOR EXTENTION OF DEADLINE TO FILE 10 FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE ANSWER AND ANY AFFIRMATIVE CORPORATION, DEFENSES 11 Defendant. [Re: ECF No. 171] 12 13 On February 27, 2025, the Court granted in part and denied in part Defendant Federal 14 Deposit Insurance Corporation, in its corporate capacity’s (“FDIC-C”) motion to dismiss Plaintiff 15 SVB Financial Trust’s (“Trust”) Amended Complaint. See ECF 162. FDIC-C’s deadline to file an 16 Answer and any affirmative defenses is currently March 13, 2025. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(a)(4)(A). 17 On March 7, 2025, the FDIC-C filed an administrative motion requesting the Court to extend the 18 deadline by one week. See ECF 171. The FDIC-C argues that “good cause” exists to extend the 19 deadline by one week so that the FDCI-C can “adequately investigate and assert its affirmative 20 defenses in response to [the Trust’s] remaining claims and allegations.” ECF 171 at 2. The Trust 21 opposes the FDIC-C’s request. ECF 172. The Trust requests the Court to adopt a timeline that would 22 allow the Trust’s anticipated motion to strike the FDIC-C’s affirmative defenses to be heard together 23 with the Trust’s motion to strike FDIC in its receivership capacities’ affirmative defenses in the 24 consolidated SVB Financial Trust v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., as Receiver for Silicon 25 Valley Bank, et al., No. 5:24-cv-01321-BLF (N.D. Cal.) on May 1, 2025. 26 Courts have broad discretion to grant extensions of time. Jenkins v. Commonwealth Land 27 Title Ins. Co., 95 F.3d 791, 795 (9th Cir. 1996). Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b)(1), 1 the request for an extension is made before the original time or its extension expires. See Fed. R. 2 Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(A). The rule is “to be liberally construed to effectuate the general purpose of seeing 3 that cases are tried on the merits.” Ahanchian v. Xenon Pictures, Inc., 624 F.3d 1253, 1258-59 (9th 4 Cir. 2010) (citation omitted). Thus, a court should normally grant requests for extensions of time 5 made before the applicable deadline has passed “in absence of bad faith on the part of the party 6 seeking relief or prejudice to the adverse party.” Id., 624 F.3d at 1259. “‘Good cause’ is a non- 7 rigorous standard that has been construed broadly across procedural and statutory contexts.” 8 Ahanchian, 624 F.3d at 1259. 9 The Court finds that the FDIC-C has shown good cause for the requested extension of time 10 to file an answer and any affirmative defenses. The Court finds that the one-week extension would 11 allow the FDIC-C to adequately investigate the Trust’s remaining claims and would be helpful to 12 the Court in ruling on future disputes related to any affirmative defenses. The parties are also advised 5 13 that the Court is unavailable on May 1, 2025 to add an additional motion to dismiss or motion to 14 strike the FDIC-C affirmative defenses. That calendar is full. 3 15 For the above reasons, the FDIC-C’s administrative motion to for an one-week extension to a 16 || file its Answer and any affirmative defenses to the Trust’s Amended Complaint is GRANTED. The 3 17 || FDIC-C SHALL file any Answer or affirmative defenses to the Trust’s Amended Complaint on or before March 20, 2025. 19 21 22 Dated: March 10, 2025

ETH LABSON FREEMAN 24 United States District Judge 25 26 27 28