SVB Financial Trust v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
- Beth Freeman
- 5:23-cv-06543
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In SVB Financial Trust v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Judge Freeman granted a one-week extension of the deadline to answer.
The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation received one additional week to file its answer and any affirmative defenses. SVB Financial Trust remains subject to the court’s revised schedule and cannot add a motion concerning the corporation’s defenses to the May 1, 2025 calendar.
What happened
In SVB Financial Trust v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the court considered the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation’s request for more time to answer the Trust’s amended complaint and state any affirmative defenses. The deadline was March 13, 2025.
The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation argued that it needed one additional week to investigate the Trust’s remaining claims and prepare its defenses. The Trust opposed the request and proposed coordinating any later motions about defenses with proceedings in a related case.
Judge Beth Labson Freeman found good cause for the extension and granted the administrative motion. The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation must file its answer and any affirmative defenses by March 20, 2025; the court also said it was unavailable on May 1, 2025, to hear an additional motion about those defenses.
The detailed version
- SVB Financial Trust v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation · No. 5:23-cv-06543
- Beth Freeman
- Mar. 10, 2025
Background
On February 27, 2025, the court granted in part and denied in part the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation’s motion to dismiss the Trust’s amended complaint. Under the resulting schedule, the corporation’s answer and any affirmative defenses were due March 13, 2025.
On March 7, 2025, the corporation filed an administrative motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b)(1) seeking a one-week extension. It argued that good cause existed because additional time would allow it to investigate the Trust’s remaining claims and prepare its affirmative defenses. The Trust opposed the request and asked the court to adopt a schedule allowing its expected motion to strike the corporation’s defenses to be heard with a motion concerning defenses in a related consolidated case on May 1, 2025.
Court’s Analysis
The court explained that courts have broad discretion to extend deadlines. Rule 6(b)(1) permits an extension request made before the original deadline expires. The court also noted that requests made before the deadline normally should be granted absent bad faith by the requesting party or prejudice to the opposing party, and that the good-cause standard is broad and not demanding.
The court found that the corporation had shown good cause. It determined that one additional week would allow the corporation to adequately investigate the Trust’s remaining claims and would help the court resolve future disputes concerning affirmative defenses. The court advised the parties that it was unavailable on May 1, 2025, to add another motion to dismiss or motion to strike concerning the corporation’s affirmative defenses because the calendar was full.
Disposition
The court granted the corporation’s administrative motion for a one-week extension to file its answer and any affirmative defenses to the Trust’s amended complaint. The corporation must file them on or before March 20, 2025.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.