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

[2] 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 SAN JOSE DIVISION [6] 7 SVB FINANCIAL TRUST, Case No. 24-cv-01321-BLF 8 Plaintiff, 9 v. 10 FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION, AS RECEIVER FOR 11 SILICON VALLEY BANK, et al., 12 Defendants. 13 SVB FINANCIAL TRUST, Case No. 23-cv-06543-BLF 14 Plaintiff, 15 v. ORDER CONSOLIDATING CASES 16 FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION, [Re: ECF No. 141] [17] Defendant. [18] The Court has related SVB Financial Trust v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, in its [19] corporate capacity, No. 5:23-cv-06543-BLF (the “FDIC-C Action”) and SVB Financial Trust v. [20] Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, as Receiver for Silicon Valley Bank and Silicon Valley [21] Bridge Bank, N.A., No. 5:24-cv-01321-BLF (the “FDIC-R Action”). See FDIC-C Action, ECF 38. [22] Both actions are now assigned to the undersigned Judge. On February 6, 2025, the Court ordered [23] coordinated discovery and set hearings for motions for summary judgment on February 5, 2026, for [24] both actions. See FDIC-R Action, ECF 157. [25] Before the Court is SVB Financial Trust’s (“Trust”) motion to consolidate the FDIC-C [26] Action and the FDIC-R Action. See FDIC-R Action, ECF 141. The FDIC-C and the FDIC-Rs [27] oppose. See id. at ECF 151, 154. The Trust filed a reply. See id. at ECF 159. The Court finds the 1 motion appropriate for disposition without oral argument, and hereby VACATES the hearing on 2 this motion scheduled for May 1, 2025. See Civ. L.R. 7-1(b). The hearing on the Trust’s motion to 3 strike, FDIC-R Action at ECF 160, remains set on May 1, 2025. 4 For the reasons stated below, the Court GRANTS the motion. 5 I. LEGAL STANDARD 6 “If actions before the court involve a common question of law or fact, the court may . . . 7 consolidate the actions.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a)(2). District courts have “broad discretion under [Rule 8 42(a)] to consolidate cases pending in the same district.” Investors Research Co. v. U.S. Dist. Court 9 for Cent. Dist. of California, 877 F.2d 777 , 777 (9th Cir. 1989). “In determining whether or not to 10 consolidate cases, the Court should weigh the interest of judicial convenience against the potential 11 for delay, confusion and prejudice.” Bodri v. Gopro, Inc., 2016 WL 1718217 , at *1 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 12 28, 2016) (quotation marks omitted) (quoting Zhu v. UCBH Holdings, Inc., 682 F.Supp.2d 1049 , 13 1052 (N.D. Cal. 2010)). 14 II. DISCUSSION 15 The FDIC-C Action and the FDIC-R Action, both pending before the Court, present similar 16 factual and legal issues, as they each involve the same series of events and underlying facts and are 17 based on the same alleged wrongful conduct. Compare FDIC-R Action, ECF 1 with FDIC-C Action, 18 ECF 92. Specifically, the Trust in both actions alleges that FDIC did not have the authority to deny 19 the Trust access to its deposits (“Account Funds”) at Silicon Valley Bank (“SVB”) in light of the 20 invocation the Systemic Risk Exception in the aftermath of SVB’s collapse. See, e.g., FDIC-R 21 Action, ECF 1 at ¶ 47; FDIC-C Action, ECF 92 at ¶ 6. In both actions, the Trust seeks access to its 22 Account Funds. See FDIC-R Action, ECF 1 at 56; FDIC-C Action, ECF 92 at 50. Because both 23 actions arise from the same nucleus of operative facts, allege similar wrongful conduct, involve 24 overlapping factual and legal issues, and seek similar remedies, the Court finds that consolidation 25 will conserve judicial resources, mitigate confusion, and reduce the time and cost of trying the cases 26 separately. The Court hereby GRANTS the Trust’s motion to consolidate the FDIC-C Action and 27 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 5 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