ORDER

STIPULATED REQUEST TO AMEND DISPOSITIVE MOTION DEADLINE AS MODIFIED BY THE COURT

RICHARD SEEBORG, District Judge.

Plaintiff and Counter-Defendant Ronnie Moon ("Mr. Moon") and Defendant and Counter-Plaintiff Board of Trustees of the PAMCAH-UA Local 675 Pension Fund ("Board"), by and through their undersigned counsel, stipulate as follows:

WHEREAS, on January 22, 2018, Mr. Moon filed a Complaint alleging that the Board breached its fiduciary duties under ERISA § 404(a), 29 U.S.C. § 1104(a), by representing to him between June 2013 and March 2017 that he met eligibility requirements to receive a pension, and paying him a pension for over 3 years, totaling $27,606.00. Mr. Moon further alleged a claim for injunctive and other equitable relief under ERISA § 502(a)(3), 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(3), which seeks, among other things, reinstatement of Mr. Moon's pension payments. Mr. Moon's Complaint did not assert any allegations of wrongful denial of benefits under ERISA § 502(a)(1)(B), 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(1)(B);

WHEREAS, the Court issued a Revised Case Management Order [Dkt. # 29] setting, among other things, deadlines for cross-motions for judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52 and a bench trial;

WHEREAS, on May 18, 2016 [Dkt. # 30], the Board filed an amended counter-claim alleging a claim against Mr. Moon for injunctive and other equitable relief under ERISA § 502(a)(3), 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(3), seeking, among other things, the return to the PAMCAH-UA Local 675 Pension Fund (the "Fund") of the $27,606.00 overpayment, plus interest;

WHEREAS, the parties met and conferred about the dispositive motion schedule set by the Revised Case Management Order. The parties discussed that because this is not a claim for benefits with a limited administrative record, and because the parties anticipate discovery into the factual basis of the ERISA § 502(a)(3) claim and counter-claim, should this case go to trial, it will likely require numerous witnesses to be called by both sides (many of whom are located in Hawaii) and may take up to two days. In light of this, the parties agreed to approach the Court and request that dispositive motions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52 and subsequent bench trial be taken off calendar and replaced by cross-motions for summary judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, to be followed by a bench trial, if necessary;

WHEREAS, the parties have not previously made any request to amend any case deadlines set by the Revised Case Management Order; and

WHEREAS, good cause exists for the amendments set forth above. This case is not a claim for ERISA benefits, in which the Court's review on the merits is limited to the administrative record that was before the plan administrator when it decided the benefit claim. Cross-motions for summary judgment may dispose of this case entirely, or may narrow the issues to be decided at trial;

NOW, THEREFORE, the Parties, through their respective counsel, hereby stipulate, subject to the approval of the Court, to the following:

I attest that my firm has obtained concurrence in the filing of this document from Kirsten Scott.

[PROPOSED] ORDER

Good cause exists for an order amending the deadlines for dispositive motions as follows: