Cited by

And importantly, as the district court observed, the supreme court has explicitly rejected the idea that the factor of “the amount involved and the results obtained” translates to a “dollar value proportionality rule.” Green v. BMW of N. Am., LLC, , 538 (Minn. 2013).

Under this method, the district court determines the lodestar amount by multiplying “the number of hours reasonably expended on the litigation” “by a reasonable hourly rate.” Green v. BMW of N. Am., LLC

Green v. BMW of N. Am., LLC, -35 (Minn. 2013) (quotation omitted); (“We will not set aside a district court’s factual findings underlying an award of attorney fees unless they are clearly erroneous.” (quotation omitted)).

Still, in Braatz we cited our decision in Green v. BMW of North America, LLC, in which we “concluded that it was an abuse of discretion when the district court failed to consider the amount at issue in the litigation and awarded $221,499 in attorney fees for a $25,157 damage award under Minnesota’s lemon law.” Braatz, d at 711.

A district court abuses its discretion when it “errs as a matter of law in applying improper standards in an award of fees.” -36 (Minn. 2013).

Green v. BMW of North America, LLC, see also Carlson v. SALA Architects, Inc., (“We will not 17 reverse the district court’s decision on attorney fees absent an abuse of discretion.”), rev. denied (Minn. Aug.

See Green v. BMW of N. Am., LLC, n.5 (Minn. 2013) (noting “[t]hat the district court orders lack precedential value”).

“We review an award of attorney fees for an abuse of discretion.” Green v. BMW of North America, LLC, (quotation omitted).

See Green v. BMW of N. Am., LLC, (rejecting a “dollar value proportionality rule” in attorney- fee cases under Minnesota’s lemon law and holding that the results obtained in litigation are just one lodestar consideration and are not controlling); Braatz v. Parsons Elec.

We have disciplined a lawyer in part for “displaying signage and utilizing law firm and other designations falsely implying that [the lawyer] continued to be licensed to practice law while he was suspended.” (order).

See also Green v. BMW of N. Am., LLC, -36 (Minn. 2015) (explaining that Minnesota courts use the “lodestar method” of determin ing the reasonableness of statutory attorney 16 and both the purchase agreement and secti on 572B.25(c) allowed for post-arbitration attorney fees.

The supreme court recently considered the pr oportionality of attorney fees in a case arising under section 325F.665 of the Minnes ota Statutes, the so-called “lemon law.” Green v. BMW of N. Am., LLC, n.1 (Minn. 2013).

“Generally, Minnesota courts ha ve used the lodestar method for determining the reasonableness of statutory attorney fees.” Green v. BMW of N. Am., LLC , d 530, 535 (Minn. 2013).

“An abuse of discretion occurs when a district court errs as a matter of law in applying improper standards in an award of fees.” Green v. BMW of N. Am., LLC , -35 (Minn. 2013) (quotation omitted).

at 659-60; see also Green v. BMW of N. Am., LLC , (describing six factors as “relevant circumstances” in lodestar analysis); City of Minnetonka v. Carlson , 765 n.1 (Minn. 1980) (relying on six factors to determine reasonable value of legal services); -26 (Minn. 1971) (listing six

And in Green v. BMW of North America, LLC , we held that "the amount involved and the results obtained" must be addressed in the initial lodestar calculation when determining the reasonable number of hours expended.

Green v. BMW of N. Am., LLC

7 in applying improper standards in an award of fees.” Green v. BMW of N. Am., LLC, -45 (Minn. 2013) (quotation omitted).

Green v. BMW of N. Am., LLC , , 536 (Minn. 2013).

See Green v. BMW of N. Am., LLC, -36 (Minn. 2013).

Green v. BMW of N. Am., LLC, n.5 (Minn. 2013).

Green v. BMW of No. America, LLC

“Generally, Minnesota courts have used the lodestar method for determining the reasonableness of statutory attorney fees.” Green v. BMW of N. Am., LLC, d 530, 535 (Minn. 2013); see also Cameron, d at 711 (stating that supreme court “ha[s] consistently adopted the lodestar approach whenever a statute contains an explicit directive that an award of attorney fees must be reasonable”).

Green v. BMW of N. Am., LLC, (addressing an award of attorney fees in conjunction with a consumer protection claim).

Sharpe argues that Wong was not entitled to any attorney fees and that the district court “did not fully consider the requisite factors in its analysis.”3 “[Appellate courts] review an award of attorney fees for an abuse of discretion.” Green v. BMW of N. Am., LLC, (quotation omitted).

s include the time and labor required; the nature and difficulty of the responsibility assumed; the amount involved and the results obtained; the fees customarily charged for similar legal services; the experience, reputation, and ability of counsel; and the fee arrangement existing between counsel and the client.” Green v. BMW of N. Am., 7 LLC, (quotations omitted).

Appellate courts “review an award of attorney fees for an abuse of discretion.” Green v. BMW of N. Am., LLC, d 530, 534 (Minn. 2013).

The district court rejected appellants’ claim that it had to find their underlying arguments frivolous in order to award attorney fees, and instead applied the “lodestar” analysis from Green v. BMW of N. Am., LLC

See Green v. BMW of N. Am., LLC, n.5 (Minn. 2013) (acknowledging that “district court orders lack precedential value”).

In the alternative, Parsons argues that even if the employee did not forfeit his right to attorney fees, the compensation judge and the WCCA failed to properly consider the lodestar analysis set forth in Green v. BMW of North America, LLC

“[I]n determining an award of reasonable attorney fees, a district court is to consider all relevant circumstances.” Green v. BMW of N. Am., LLC, (holding that the damages sought and the damages actually recovered are necessarily related to the reasonableness of attorney fees).

See, e.g., Green v. BMW of N. Am., LLC, -36 (Minn.2013) (lemon law); Milner, d at 620-24 (Fair Labor Standards Act); Anderson, d at 628-30 (Human Rights Act); Specialized Tours, (Securities Act).