Cement Masons, Plasterers and Shophands Service Corporation v. Surface Pros LLC et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Amanda R. Cefalu, Pamela Hodges Nissen, REINHART BOERNER VAN
DEUREN S.C., 800 Nicollet Mall, Suite 2690, Minneapolis, MN 55402, for
Plaintiff.
Gregory M. Miller, MILLER LAW OFFICE P.A., 980 Inwood Avenue North,
Oakdale, MN 55128, for Defendants.
Plaintiff Cement Masons, Plasterers and Shophands Service Corporation have
moved for summary judgment on Counts 1 and 2 of their Amended Complaint, consisting
of claims for violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. (Am.
Compl., Apr. 14, 2025, Docket No. 27.) 	Defendants did not file a memorandum in
opposition to the motion and instead filed a letter on December 19, 2025, stating:
In discussing this matter with my clients and given that Surface Pros LLC has
ceased all business operations earlier this fall, my clients have chosen not
to submit any pleadings in opposition to the summary judgment motion of
Plaintiff.
(Letter, Dec. 19, 2025, Docket No. 45.)
CEMENT MASONS, PLASTERERS, AND
SHOPHANDS SERVICE CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
v.
SURFACE PROS LLC and STACEY RIPLEY,
individually,
Defendants.
Civil No. 24-3827 (JRT/ECW)
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT
CASE 0:24-cv-03827-JRT-ECW Doc. 46 Filed 04/29/26 Page 1 of 3

-2-
Summary judgment is appropriate where there are no genuine issues of material
fact and the moving party can demonstrate that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of
law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). A fact is material if it might affect the outcome of the lawsuit,
and a dispute is genuine if the evidence is such that it could lead a reasonable jury to
return a verdict for either party. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986).
A court considering a motion for summary judgment must view the facts in the light most
favorable to the non-moving party and give that party the benefit of all reasonable
inferences to be drawn from those facts. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp.,
475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986).
After careful review of the record, even viewing the facts in the light most
favorable to the Defendants, the Court concludes that Plaintiff has carried its burden of
showing that there are no genuine disputes of material fact and that it is entitled to
judgment as a matter of law as to the allegations in Counts 1 and 2 of Plaintiff’s Amended
Complaint. The Court will therefore grant Plaintiff’s summary judgment motion.
ORDER
Based on the foregoing, and all the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT IS
HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket No. [36]) is
GRANTED as follows:
1. 	Defendants are jointly and severally liable to Plaintiff in the amount of
§340,806.18, consisting of unpaid fringe benefit contributions, liquidated
damages, and interest, pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 1132(g)(2)(A)–(D).
CASE 0:24-cv-03827-JRT-ECW Doc. 46 Filed 04/29/26 Page 2 of 3

-3-
2. 	Pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 1132(g)(2)(D), Defendants are jointly severally liable for
Plaintiff’s reasonable attorney’s fees and costs in an amount to be determined
by the Court. Plaintiff may file a motion seeking attorney’s fees and costs in
accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 54.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
DATED: April 29, 2026 	_____/s/ John R. Tunheim ____
at Minneapolis, Minnesota. 	JOHN R. TUNHEIM
United States District Judge
CASE 0:24-cv-03827-JRT-ECW Doc. 46 Filed 04/29/26 Page 3 of 3