Buster v. Mechanics Bank Supplemental Executive Retirement Plan et al

Filing 77

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST TO ADJUST SCHEDULE FOR DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT by Hon. William Alsup denying #74 Administrative Motion.(whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/13/2016)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
STEVEN K BUSTER,

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13

No. C 16-01146 WHA

Plaintiff,
v.

16

COMPENSATION COMMITTEE OF
THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF
MECHANICS BANK, MECHANICS
BANK SUPPLEMENTAL EXECUTIVE
RETIREMENT PLAN, MECHANICS
BANK, a California Corporation,

17

Defendants.

14
15

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
REQUEST TO ADJUST
SCHEDULE FOR DEFENDANTS’
MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT

/

18
19

In June 2016, the scheduling order in this ERISA action set a deadline of August 31 for

20

defendants to file a motion for summary judgment “to tee up the full case and overall scope of

21

review.” On August 31, nearly a week after an order denied defendants’ motion to dismiss,

22

defendants filed their motion for summary judgment on plaintiff’s claim for denial of benefits as

23

well as both claims for equitable relief. More than one week later, and three months after the

24

scheduling order issued, plaintiff now seeks to hold in abeyance consideration of defendants’

25

motion for summary judgment as to the equitable relief claims until after plaintiff has filed a

26

cross-motion for summary judgment on the claim for denial of benefits and after that claim is

27

decided.

28

1

Plaintiff knew that he could face a motion for summary judgment on all of his own

2

claims, not just the denial of benefits claim, simultaneously at the time of the scheduling order,

3

but waited until the last minute to seek relief from that schedule. As ordered, defendants teed

4

up the full case in their motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff must timely respond to that

5

motion.

6

This order is without prejudice to the possibility that the Court may choose to

7

consolidate the hearings on defendants’ motion and plaintiff’s potential cross-motion for the

8

sake of judicial economy.

9
IT IS SO ORDERED.

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12

Dated:

September 13, 2016.

WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2