Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-01146/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-01146-10/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 791
Nature of Suit: Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)
Cause of Action: 28:1001 E.R.I.S.A.

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STEVEN K BUSTER,

Plaintiff,

 v.

COMPENSATION COMMITTEE OF

THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF

MECHANICS BANK, MECHANICS

BANK SUPPLEMENTAL EXECUTIVE

RETIREMENT PLAN, MECHANICS

BANK, a California Corporation,

Defendants. /

No. C 16-01146 WHA

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

REQUEST TO ADJUST

SCHEDULE FOR DEFENDANTS’

MOTION FOR SUMMARY

JUDGMENT

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

decided.

Case 3:16-cv-01146-WHA Document 77 Filed 09/13/16 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

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

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

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

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

motion. 

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

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

sake of judicial economy.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 13, 2016. WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:16-cv-01146-WHA Document 77 Filed 09/13/16 Page 2 of 2