Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
D. Minn.Procedural orderFiled May 6, 2025

Nilsen v. Master Floors of Minnesota, Inc.

Judge
Laura Provinzino
Docket
0:23-cv-00676
Court
U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
Pages
11
ErisaFee Petition
In one sentence

In Nilsen v. Master Floors, Judge Provinzino granted plaintiffs’ fee motion, awarding $191,737.80 in fees and $10,228.31 in costs.

Who this affects

The plaintiffs—the trustees of the identified benefit funds—received an award of $191,737.80 in attorneys’ fees and $10,228.31 in costs. Master Floors of Minnesota, Inc., Daniel S. Carlson, DC Nicollet Development, LLC, and New Life Properties, LLC were made jointly and severally responsible for those amounts.

What happened

In Nilsen v. Master Floors of Minnesota, Inc., trustees of several benefit funds sued over unpaid employee-benefit contributions. The court had previously largely ruled for the plaintiffs and found that they could recover reasonable legal fees and costs.

The plaintiffs requested $200,489.80 in legal fees and $10,228.31 in costs. The court reviewed the request even though the defendants did not oppose it, reduced some fees for excessive or unclear entries, clerical work, and unexplained timekeepers, and lowered one attorney’s hourly rate.

Judge Provinzino granted the plaintiffs’ motion. The court awarded $191,737.80 in legal fees and $10,228.31 in costs against Master Floors of Minnesota, Inc., Daniel S. Carlson, DC Nicollet Development, LLC, and New Life Properties, LLC, jointly and severally.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Nilsen v. Master Floors of Minnesota, Inc. · No. 0:23-cv-00676
Judge
Laura M. Provinzino
Date
May 6, 2025

Background

The plaintiffs were trustees and fiduciaries of welfare-benefit funds. They had sued Master Floors of Minnesota, Inc.; Daniel S. Carlson; DC Nicollet Development, LLC; New Life Properties, LLC; and other defendants under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), alleging that required fringe-benefit contributions were not paid under a collective bargaining agreement.

The court had previously largely granted the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment and entered monetary judgments against Master Floors, DC Nicollet, New Life Properties, and Carlson. It also held that the plaintiffs were entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs under 29 U.S.C. § 1132(g)(2)(D). The court had rejected Carlson’s personal liability for obligations attributed to New Life Gardens LLC and Up We Go LLC.

The plaintiffs then moved for attorneys’ fees and costs. The defendants did not respond.

Attorneys’ Fees

The court evaluated the request using the lodestar method, which generally calculates fees by multiplying reasonable hours by reasonable hourly rates. The court found that most of the requested work was reasonable because the case involved incomplete business records, an audit that required estimates and testimony, and multiple corporate entities.

The court reduced the request in several respects. It lowered transactional attorney Jack Murphy’s hourly rate from $530 to $350 for 1.6 hours. It also removed fees for imprecise time entries, clerical and administrative tasks, and time worked by Beverly Butula and Eileen Linzmeyer because the plaintiffs had not explained their roles or qualifications. These reductions totaled $8,464.00.

After applying the reasonable rates and hours, the court calculated a lodestar of $191,737.80 and awarded that amount in attorneys’ fees.

Costs

The plaintiffs requested $10,228.31 in court, service-of-process, and deposition costs. The court found those costs recoverable, reasonable, and supported by the record, and awarded the full amount.

Ruling

The court granted the plaintiffs’ Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs. It awarded $191,737.80 in attorneys’ fees and $10,228.31 in costs against Master Floors of Minnesota, Inc., Daniel S. Carlson, DC Nicollet Development, LLC, and New Life Properties, LLC, jointly and severally. The order directed that judgment be entered accordingly.

The authoritative version

Read the full 11-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.