8th Circuit upholds ruling against iron workers unions suing Barnhart Crane for unpaid contributions, finding…
Iron Workers STL Pension Fund v. Barnhart Crane & Rigging Co.
Status and record
Your position
Do you support this decision?
An advisory read. Your position on a ruling is citizen opinion; it does not form a citizen mandate and is never a legal appeal.
Civitus citizens
Take a position above to see how verified Civitus citizens are weighing in. Positions stay sealed until you have one of your own.
The Civitus brief
AI analysis
Plain English
8th Circuit upholds ruling against iron workers unions suing Barnhart Crane for unpaid contributions, finding no admissible damages evidence after key witness was properly excluded as undisclosed expert.
Why it matters
The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's decisions to exclude testimony from a witness the unions failed to disclose as an expert, and to grant summary judgment in favor of Barnhart Crane and Rigging. Without that witness's testimony, the unions had no admissible evidence of damages, dooming their claims. The court also dismissed the portion of the appeal challenging an attorneys' fees award because that issue was not yet final and the court lacked jurisdiction over it.
Who it affects
This ruling primarily affects labor unions and union benefit fund trustees who seek to enforce collective bargaining agreements requiring employer contributions, as well as employers like Barnhart who may face such contribution claims. It also serves as a practical reminder for litigants that witnesses who offer opinion testimony based on specialized experience must be properly disclosed as experts under federal court rules.
What happens next
Current
Decision issued Jul 13, 2026
Published opinion
Next
Possible rehearing
Parties can ask the same court to reconsider. Then: possible supreme court petition.
View possible path
- Decision issued Jul 13, 2026Published opinion
- Possible rehearingParties can ask the same court to reconsider.
- Possible Supreme Court petitionThe Supreme Court takes only a small share of petitions.
Citizens vs Court
Civitus citizens
Sealed
Take a counted position to open the tally.
Appellate court
Decision issued
Jul 13, 2026 · Published opinion
Take a position above to open the comparison.
A comparison of public sentiment with the ruling. Courts are not subject to a citizen mandate, and judges are not elected representatives.
Take action
Courts decide cases; Congress can respond with legislation. Telling your representative is the civic lever here.
Public discussion
Add a tag
Citizen opinion on this ruling, not a rehearing of the case. Similar opinions on this case can open a solution poll.
3 similar opinions open a solution poll
Loading opinions
Deeper context
Long-form analysis, legal background, and source material
Read analysisAnalysis · Source
DEEPER READ
This case arose when iron workers unions and their fund trustees sued Barnhart Crane and Rigging, a Tennessee company, under federal labor and pension law. The unions claimed Barnhart failed to make required contributions to union trust funds and the individual unions when its employees performed covered work within the unions' territorial jurisdiction. Four separate breach of contract claims were brought, one for each union and the associated trust funds. The district court granted summary judgment to Barnhart on the claim involving Local 321 because Barnhart was not a party or signatory to Local 321's collective bargaining agreement, and no other agreement bound Barnhart to that union. The court also partially excluded the testimony of the unions' key witness, Bradley Soderstrom, who had conducted audits and payroll compliance reviews used to calculate the alleged unpaid amounts. The district court found that Soderstrom was being used as an expert witness even though the unions never formally disclosed him as one, and that his calculations relied on judgments and assumptions drawn from his experience rather than straightforward fact-finding. Without Soderstrom's excluded opinions, the unions were left with no admissible evidence to support the damages figures on their remaining claims. The district court therefore granted summary judgment to Barnhart on those counts as well. The Eighth Circuit agreed with both the exclusion ruling and the summary judgment rulings, affirming those decisions in full. The district court had also granted Barnhart's motion for attorneys' fees, but did not set the specific dollar amount. Because the fee amount had not been finally determined, the Eighth Circuit found it lacked jurisdiction to review that part of the appeal and dismissed it, leaving the fee issue to be resolved further at the trial court level.
CITATION AND RECORD
Record source: CourtListener
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 25-1497 ___________________________ Board of Trustees of the Iron Workers St. Louis District Council Pension Fund Trust; Board of Trustees of the Iron Workers St. Louis District Council Annuity Trust; Board of Trustees of the Iron Workers St. Louis District Council Welfare Plan; Iron Workers Local No. 103 of the International Association of Bridge, Structural, Ornamental and Reinforcing Iron Workers; Iron Workers Local No. 321 of the International Association of Bridge, Structural, Ornamental and Reinforcing Iron Workers; Iron Workers Local No. 782 of the International Association of Bridge, Structural, Ornamental and Reinforcing Iron Workers Plaintiffs - Appellants v. Barnhart Crane & Rigging Co., a Tennessee Corporation Defendant - Appellee ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis ____________ Submitted: November 18, 2025 Filed: July 13, 2026 ____________ Before COLLOTON, Chief Judge, SHEPHERD and ERICKSON, Circuit Judges. ____________ SHEPHERD, Circuit Judge. Plaintiffs, made up of local iron workers unions and union fund trustees, initiated this action pursuant to the Employment Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) and the Labor Management Relations Act (LMRA), asserting various claims stemming from the allegation that Barnhart Crane & Rigging, Co., (Barnhart) failed to make the requisite contributions to the unions and union trust funds for work performed by its employees within Plaintiffs’ territorial jurisdiction. As relevant to this appeal, Barnhart filed a motion to exclude the testimony of one of Plaintiffs’ witnesses, Bradley Soderstrom, for failure to disclose him as an expert witness, which the district court1 granted insofar as Soderstrom’s testimony offered expert opinions. The district court also granted summary judgment in favor of Barnhart on one of Plaintiffs’ claims because Barnhart was not a party or signatory to any agreement with the specific union involved and granted summary judgment on the remaining claims because, without Soderstrom’s testimony, Plaintiffs had no admissible evidence of damages. Barnhart then moved for an award of attorneys’ fees, which the district court granted without setting the amount of fees. Plaintiffs appeal, arguing that the district court erred in excluding Soderstrom’s testimony and in granting summary judgment to Barnhart. Plaintiffs also challenge the award of attorneys’ fees. Having jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm the district court’s exclusion of evidence and summary judgment rulings. However, we lack jurisdiction over the appeal as it relates to the award of attorneys’ fees and dismiss that portion of the appeal. I. The Plaintiffs in this action consist of union fund trustees and individual unions. The Board of Trustee plaintiffs are the Board of Trustees of the Iron Workers St. Louis District Council Pension Fund Trust; the Board of Trustees of the 1 The Honorable John M. Bodenhausen, United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri, to whom the case was referred for final disposition by consent of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). -2- Iron Workers St. Louis District Council Annuity Trust; and the Board of Trustees of the Iron Workers St. Louis District Council Welfare Plan. Each trust fund, which represents the Iron Workers St. Louis District Council (IWSTLDC), receives contributions from employers pursuant to the Collective Bargaining Agreements (CBAs) between the employers and the various unions affiliated with the IWSTLDC and the International Association of Bridge, Structural, Ornamental and Reinforcing Iron Workers Union, AFL-CIO. Each Board of Trustees is also authorized to initiate legal action on behalf of trust fund participants and beneficiaries to collect unpaid contributions from individual employers. The union plaintiffs consist of three individual unions: Iron Workers Local No. 103 of the International Association of Bridge, Structural, Ornamental and Reinforcing Iron Workers (Local 103); the Iron Workers Local No. 321 of the International Association of Bridge, Structural, Ornamental and Reinforcing Iron Workers (Local 321); and Iron Workers Local No. 782 of the International Association of Bridge, Structural, Ornamental and Reinforcing Iron Workers (Local 782). Each union is part of the IWSTLDC. Plaintiffs filed this action, alleging four separate causes of action pursuant to ERISA and the LMRA: breach of contract related to the IWSTLDC Trust Funds (Count 1); breach of contract related to the Local 103 CBAs (Count 2); breach of contract related to the Local 321 CBAs (Count 3); and breach of contract related to the Local 782 CBAs (Count 4). According to Plaintiffs, Barnhart was bound by the local union CBAs, which obligated Barnhart to make certain contributions to both the unions and the union trust funds when Barnhart employees performed covered work within Plaintiffs’ territorial jurisdiction. Plaintiffs allege, however, that Barnhart failed to make the required contributions, resulting in a breach of its contractual obligations. For each count, Plaintiffs identified the amounts they claimed they were owed, including interest and damages. After discovery, Barnhart filed a motion for partial summary judgment, asserting that it was entitled to summary judgment on Count 3—the count involving Local 321—because it was not a signatory to Local 321’s CBA, did not enter into any agreement with Local 321, and was not bound to make any contributions to -3- Local 321 or the associated trust funds pursuant to any other agreement. Barnhart then filed a motion to exclude from trial Plaintiffs’ disclosed witness, Soderstrom, asserting Plaintiffs were attempting to use him as an expert witness despite not having disclosed him as such and arguing his opinions were based on unreliable methodology. Barnhart also sought summary judgment based on the lack of admissible evidence of damages. On the same day, Plaintiffs filed their own motion for summary judgment, asserting that they were entitled to judgment in their favor on all counts. The district court granted Barnhart’s motion for partial summary judgment as it related to Count 3, granted Barnhart’s motion for summary judgment as to Counts 1, 2, and 4, denied Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment, and granted Barnhart’s motion to exclude Soderstrom in part. As to Barnhart’s motion for partial summary judgment regarding Count 3 and Local 321, the district court concluded that, on the summary judgment record, Plaintiffs failed to provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate that Barnhart was obligated to pay any fringe benefits or contributions to Local 321 and its associated trusts, noting that Barnhart was not a party or signatory to the Local 321 CBA and that no other agreement bound Barnhart to Local 321. As to Barnhart’s motion to exclude, the district court detailed Soderstrom’s audits and payroll compliance reports upon which Plaintiffs relied to calculate the amounts it claimed Barnhart failed to contribute. The district court noted that, in making his calculations, Soderstrom admitted to making judgments and assumptions based on his experience and common procedures, an
Sources
- Official opinionPrimary record
Public record. Timeline facts only; no accusation of wrongdoing. Advisory citizen opinion does not form a citizen mandate.