Cited by

It concluded that reduction of Engebretson’s attorney fees was not appropriate because “it would be nearly impossible to differentiate whether an attorney was working on the discrimination claim or retaliation claim throughout litigation.” The district court relied on our decision in 650 North Main Ass’n v. Frauenshuh, Inc., rev. denied (Minn. Nov.

650 N. Main Ass’n v. Frauenshuh, Inc., rev. denied (Minn. Nov.

it is in the best position to evaluate the reasonableness of requested attorney fees.” 650 N. Main Ass’n v. Frauenshuh, Inc., (quotation omitted), rev. denied (Minn. Nov.

is in the best position to evaluate the reasonableness of requested attorney fees.” 650 N. Main Ass’ n v. Frauenshuh, Inc., (quotation omitted), rev. denied (Minn. Nov.

But “[i]f answers on a special verdict form ‘can be reconciled on any theory’ consistent with the evidence and the fair inferences drawn from the evidence, ‘the verdict will not be disturbed.’” 650 N. Main Ass’n v. Frauenshuh, Inc., (quoting Dunn, d at 555) (other quotation omitted), rev. denied (Minn. Nov.

650 N. Main Ass’n v. Frauenshuh, Inc., rev. denied (Minn. Nov.

Co., (applying Green to the Workers’ Compensation Act and rejecting a dollar-value proporti onality rule); 650 N. Main Ass’n v. Frauenshuh, Inc., (applying United States Supreme Court precedent 10 and concluding that attorney-fee awards are not limited by contingency-fee agreements under the Minnesota Common Int erest Ownership Act).

said it did not have the information necessary “to evaluate the reasonableness of Granite’s hours prior to the commencement of this suit.” “Because the district court is the most familiar with all aspects of the action from its inception through post trial motions, it is in the best position to evaluate the reasonableness of requested attorney fees.” 650 N. Main Ass’n v. Frauenshuh, Inc., 3 Half of $l61,019.50 is $80,509.75; the district court disallowed $70,416.65.

Musicland Grp., Inc., d at 535; 650 N. Main Ass’n v. Frauenshuh, Inc., rev. denied (Minn. Nov.

650 N. Main Ass’n v. Frauenshuh, Inc.

“Under the lodestar method, the district court determines the number of hours reasonably expended o n the litigation and multiplies that number by a reasonable hourly rate.” 650 N. Main Ass’n v. Frauenshuh, Inc. , review denied (Minn. Nov.

“We review an attorney fee award for an abuse of discre tion.” 650 N. Main Ass’n v. Frauenshuh, Inc. , review denied ( M i n n .

See 650 N. Main Ass’n v. Frauenshuh, Inc. , (“Because the district court is the most familiar with all aspects of t he action from its inception through post trial motions, it is in the best position to evaluate the reasonableness of requested attorney fees.” (quotation omitted)), review denied (Minn. Nov.

MCIOA claims MCIOA “is based upon the Uniform Common Interest Ownership Act (UCIOA) (1982) and codifies the rights of a homeowners’ association in a common interest community to bring causes of action against the declarant for engineering and construction defects.” 650 N. Main Ass’n v. Frauenshuh, Inc. , –87 (Minn. App. 2016), review denied (Minn. Nov.

See 650 N. Main Ass’n v. Frauenshuh, Inc., (“Because the district court is the most familiar with all aspects of the action from its inception through post trial motions, it is in the best position to evaluate the reasonableness of requested attorney fees.” (quotation omitted)), review denied (Minn. Nov.

This court acknowledged this principle in 650 N. Main Ass’n v. Frauenshuh, Inc., review denied (Minn. Nov.

P. 52.01, and review factual findings regarding the reasonableness of attorney fees for clear error, 650 N. Main Ass’n v. Frauenshuh, Inc., review denied (Minn. Nov.

“Because the district court is the most familiar with all aspects of the action from its inception through post-trial motions, it is in the best position to evaluate the reasonableness of reque sted attorney fees.” 650 N. Main Ass’n v. Frauenshuh, Inc. , (quotation omitted), review denied (Minn. Nov.

650 North Main Ass’n v. Frauenshuh, Inc. , review denied (Minn. Nov.

See 650 N. Main Ass’n v. Frauenshuh, Inc. , (stating it is the jury’s exclusive duty to resolve factual issues), review denied (Minn. Nov.

nsider all relevant circumstances,” including “‘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 c ounsel and the client.’” 650 N. Main Ass’n v. Frauenshuh, Inc., (quoting Milner, d at 621).

“Because the district court is the most familiar with all aspects of the action from its inception through post trial motions, it is in the best position to evaluate the reasonableness of requested attorney fees.” 650 N. Main Ass’n v. Frauenshuh, Inc., (quotation omitted), review denied (Minn. Nov.