Rod Marshall v. Anderson Excavating & Wrecking, 8 F.4th 700

Background

Anderson Excavating entered a CBA requiring contributions to multiemployer Welfare and Pension Plans; trustees may sue under the Plans’ trust agreements.
Plaintiffs (trustees and the Union) sued under ERISA to collect delinquent contributions, interest, liquidated damages, and attorneys’ fees.
On first appeal the Eighth Circuit reversed the district court’s use of alter-ego to attribute one employee’s work and remanded for recalculation of amounts.
On remand the district court removed those alter-ego contributions, awarded $4,285.88 in unpaid contributions, and assessed prejudgment interest and liquidated damages using a trustee-adopted Delinquent Policy & Procedure (DPP) prescribing 1.5% per month (18% annually).
The court awarded liquidated damages equal to the interest amount ($4,657.75) and, after reconsidering billing allocation across two funds, awarded $39,287.34 in attorneys’ fees (using a $155 hourly rate and halving the requested fee as a proportionality adjustment).
Anderson appealed again, challenging prejudgment interest, liquidated damages, and the attorneys’ fees award; the Eighth Circuit affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Prejudgment interest rate and calculation	Marshall: plan rate (DPP 1.5%/month) applies; court should compute interest through Feb 2019	Anderson: no agreement to DPP rate; Nebraska usury law bars 18% and prevents awarding such interest; district court didn’t show calculation	Affirmed: employer bound by trust/CBA to plan; DPP validly adopted by trustees; 1.5%/month applied; court’s math (five delinquencies × .015 × months) yields $4,657.75 and Nebraska law doesn’t override ERISA mandate to use plan rate
Liquidated damages amount	Marshall: award per §1132(g)(2) — greater of interest or plan-provided liquidated damages	Anderson: contests calculation/usurious penalty arguments	Affirmed: statute requires greater of interest or plan liquidated damages; interest exceeded statutory alternative, so liquidated damages = $4,657.75
Attorneys’ fees — entitlement and method	Marshall: entitled to reasonable fees under §1132(g)(2)(D); lodestar with adjustments; explanation for split billing between two funds supports hours claimed	Anderson: district court exceeded mandate/law-of-the-case by revisiting fees; plaintiffs failed to cross-appeal earlier fee ruling; fee amount excessive relative to modest monetary recovery	Affirmed: remand expressly left fees for further proceedings; district court properly applied lodestar (rate $155/hr), accepted billing allocation, and reasonably reduced the request by half for proportionality and other factors; $39,287.34 not an abuse of discretion

Key Cases Cited

Marshall v. Anderson Excavating & Wrecking Co., 901 F.3d 936 (8th Cir. 2018) (prior panel decision reversing alter-ego-based contributions and remanding)
32BJ N. Pension Fund v. Nutrition Mgmt. Servs. Co., 935 F.3d 93 (2d Cir. 2019) (ERISA fiduciaries may recover delinquent contributions and court must use plan-provided interest rate if any)
Iron Workers Dist. Council v. Hudson Steel Fabricators & Erectors, Inc., 68 F.3d 1502 (2d Cir. 1995) (approving per-month interest rates in ERISA delinquency actions)
Hardt v. Reliance Standard Life Ins. Co., 560 U.S. 242 (2010) (fee recovery under §1132(g)(2)(D) requires a judgment in favor of the plan)
Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (1983) (lodestar method — hours reasonably expended × reasonable rate — as starting point for fee awards)
Bethea v. Levi Strauss & Co., 916 F.2d 453 (8th Cir. 1990) (mandate/law-of-the-case limits district court on remand absent explicit directions)
Jaramillo v. Burkhart, 59 F.3d 78 (8th Cir. 1995) (district court must follow appellate mandate)
G&K Servs. Co. v. Bill’s Super Foods, Inc., 766 F.3d 797 (8th Cir. 2014) (district court may reduce fee award based on degree of success)
Cent. Pension Fund v. Ray Haluch Gravel Co., 745 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2014) (rejecting rigid proportionality requirement between fees and damages)
Moysis v. DTG Datanet, 278 F.3d 819 (8th Cir. 2002) (reasonable hourly rate is prevailing market rate where case was litigated)