Green v. BMW of North America, LLC
826 N.W.2d 530
| Minn. | 2013Background
- Green, a consumer, leased a BMW vehicle and sued BMW of North America under Minnesota's lemon law, alleging defects and related warranties.
- The district court conducted a four-day bench trial and found in Green's favor on all claims, awarding $25,157 in damages (full vehicle lease refund minus 10% for reasonable use plus costs).
- Green moved for attorney fees and costs under Minnesota’s lemon law and the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, seeking $231,101 in fees and $7,565 in costs.
- BMW opposed, challenging the reasonableness of hourly rates, hours billed, and bilateral billing of tasks by two attorneys, proposing about $75,000 as reasonable in an addendum.
- The district court awarded Green $221,499 in attorney fees and $7,565 in costs, cutting only the paralegal rate from $165 to $80 and otherwise not reducing hours or rates.
- BMW appealed contending the district court erred by not considering the amount involved in the litigation when determining the reasonableness of fees; the court granted review on that issue.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper method for calculating lemon-law fees | Green advocates lodestar; no strict dollar-proportional rule. | BMW urges considering total amount involved as a relevant factor in fee reasonableness. | Lodestar method applies, with_amount involved and results obtained among relevant factors. |
| Relevance of the amount involved in litigation to fee reasonableness | Amount involved should not mandate proportional fees; focus on reasonableness. | Courts should weigh the litigation amount in setting a reasonable fee. | Amount involved is a relevant consideration alongside results obtained. |
| District court's treatment on remand and required explanation of fee award | District court should adhere to established lodestar factors and avoid double recovery. | Court should not be required to revisit issues already appealed or reargue objections. | On remand, court must address BMW's specific objections and provide a concise, reasoned explanation for the fee award. |
Key Cases Cited
- Milner v. Farmers Ins. Exch., 748 N.W.2d 608 (Minn. 2008) (amount involved and results obtained are relevant to fee awards)
- Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (U.S. 1983) (lodestar method; reasonableness of hours and rates; additional considerations)
- Paulson, 290 Minn. 371 (Minn. 1971) (consider all relevant circumstances in reasonableness of fees)
- City of Riverside v. Rivera, 477 U.S. 561 (U.S. 1986) (damages recovery not strictly proportional to fees; expenses relevant)
- Asp v. O’Brien, 277 N.W.2d 382 (Minn. 1979) (amount at issue as a relevant consideration in fee awards)
- In re Petition of Attorney Fees, 350 N.W.2d 373 (Minn. 1984) (amount involved bears on attorney-fee responsibility)
- Gumbhir v. Curators of the Univ. of Mo., 157 F.3d 1141 (8th Cir. 1998) (correlation between hours and total recovery in fee awards)
- Ursic v. Bethlehem Mines, 719 F.2d 670 (3d Cir. 1983) (relationship between hours worked and total recovery in fee setting)
- Jorstad v. IDS Realty Trust, 643 F.2d 1305 (8th Cir. 1981) (abuse of discretion standard in fee-award decisions)