A California federal judge Wednesday denied the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp.'s request that she empanel an advisory jury in a suit looking to force the agency to return some $1.9 billion in frozen deposits to the former operator of Silicon Valley Bank, finding "no compelling reasons" to do so.

U.S. District Judge Beth Labson Freeman said she was initially drawn to the idea of empaneling an advisory jury, which is installed by a judge to provide a nonlegally binding opinion following a trial. However, "at the end of the day, the court concludes that there are no compelling reasons for doing that in this case," Judge Freeman said.

In the suit, SVB Financial Group claims that the FDIC, in its capacity as receiver, broke bankruptcy protection and public promises to return account deposits to move forward, but permanently dismissed the debtor's requests for interest and lost revenue damages.

The FDIC had pushed for the advisory jury, while SVB opposed it. Ultimately, Judge Freeman said Wednesday that any benefit "would clearly be outweighed by the extra time, expense and burden on citizens of our district, not to mention the burden on the court and parties."

"Although the San Jose Division draws jurors from one of the most highly educated and sophisticated regions of the country, the complexity of the case also mitigates against imposing such a burden on jurors to merely suggest an outcome to the court," the judge said. "Accordingly, having considered the parties' thoughtful moving papers, the court declines to empanel an advisory jury."

In the case, the defunct bank operator is looking to reclaim roughly $1.9 billion in deposits the company said were seized from its accounts in the days after the California-based bank's failure.

SVB Financial filed for bankruptcy in New York with $3.3 billion in liabilities shortly after regulators took over the technology industry-focused bank in March 2023. The bank operator secured confirmation of a Chapter 11 plan in August 2024.

Initially, the debtor was able to withdraw money from accounts taken over by the FDIC-appointed receivers, but then transfers were frozen, tipping it into bankruptcy, SVB said.

Late last year, Judge Freeman trimmed the suit, keeping in place four counts and tossing six others. Still, she gave SVB the opportunity to refile five dismissed claims alleging the FDIC and receivers the agency appointed violated contract agreements and didn't follow federal and state regulations.

The FDIC and counsel for SVB didn't immediately respond to requests for comment late Wednesday.

SVB Financial is represented by Ryan Hayward, Ellen Watlington, Niharika Simran Sachdeva, Maya James, Julia Lees Allen, Jan Nielsen Little, Robert Addy Van Nest and Zainab Ramahi of Keker Van Nest & Peters LLP and Jonathan K. Chang of Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP.

The FDIC is represented by Stephen Sorenson, Elliot McGraw and Michael L. Shenkman of Bailey & Glasser LLP, Lawrence H. Heftman, Lynn R. Fiorentino and David C. Giles of ArentFox Schiff LLP and Casey D. Laffey, Kurt F. Gwynne, Raymond A. Cardozo and Emily F. Lynch of Reed Smith LLP.

The case is SVB Financial Group v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. et al., case number 5:24-cv-01321, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.