[¶ 1] Roland Riemers appeals the district court’s order granting attorney’s fees arising from his suit against the State of North Dakota. We affirm the district court’s order because the court did not abuse its discretion when determining the amount of attorney’s fees.
I
[¶ 2] On September 21, 2006, Riemers filed a lawsuit against the State of North Dakota, the North Dakota State Fair Association and several individuals involved with the State Fair Association. The district court granted summary judgment because the allegations made in Riemers’ complaint were legally identical to those considered in
Bolinske v. N.D. State Fair Ass’n
and were dispositive of the issues
[¶ 3] Riemers appealed to the North Dakota Court of Appeals.
See Riemers v. State,
[¶ 4] A hearing was held by the district court on August 22, 2007 to ascertain the amount of the fee award. The district court determined $1,881.78 was a reasonable amount. While not explicitly stated in the order, this amount was based on the affidavit of Deborah Matzke, an account specialist with the Attorney General’s Office. In her affidavit, Matzke stated the Attorney General’s Office billed the North Dakota Risk Management Fund for twenty-four hours of attorney work ($1,287.84) and nineteen hours of paralegal time ($593.94).
[¶ 5] Riemers appeals the award of attorney’s fees to this Court, arguing (1) the court should have followed the American Rule, (2) attorney’s fees should not have been awarded because the State was acting pro se, (3) paralegal fees should not have been included, (4) the district court failed to follow N.D.R.Civ.P. 54(e), and (5) the amount of feеs was not sufficiently proven.
II
[¶ 6] We are unable to consider Riemers’ first two issues because they are not properly before this Court. Riemers’ petition for review of the court of aрpeals decision pursuant to N.D. Sup.Ct. Admin. R. 27 § 13 was denied by this Court. When this Court denies a petition to review a court of appeals decision, the decision becomes final.
Interest of S.J.F.,
[¶ 7] Here, the court of appeals determined the State could recover attorney’s fees and remanded this case to the district court for a determination of amount. Therefore, the issues Riemers raises regarding whether attorney’s fees are recoverable in this case are res judica-ta. The doctrine of res judicata “bar[s] courts from relitigating claims and issues in order to promote the finality of judgments, which increases certainty, avoids multiple litigation, wasteful delay and exрense, and ultimately conserves judicial resources.”
Ungar v. N.D. State University,
III
[¶ 8] Riemers’ three final issues address the amount of fees awarded rather than whether fees are generally appropriate. “A trial court is considered an expert in determining the amount of attorney fees. Its decision concerning the amount
A
[¶ 9] Riemers argues that any fees associated with the work of paralegals should be excluded from the attorney’s fees award because a paralegal is not a licensed attorney. We disagree.
[¶ 10] Charges arising out of work performed by paralegals was traditiоnally included in an attorney’s hourly rate.
W. Va. Univ. Hosps. v. Casey,
[¶ 11] There is no case law directly addressing this question in North Dakota, though this Court has upheld an award of attorney’s fees that included paralegal costs.
Ritter, Laber & Assoc. v. Koch Oil, Inc.,
B
[¶ 12] The court of appeals awarded attorney’s fees under N.D.R.App.P. 38, which states, “If the court determines that an appeal is frivolous, or that any party has been dilatory in prosecuting the appeal, it may award just damages and single or double costs, including reasonable attorney’s fees.” Riemers argues an award of appellate attorney’s fees must procedurally comply with N.D.R.Civ.P. 54(e)(2):
“A claim for attorneys’ fees and related nontaxable expenses not determined by the judgment must be made by motion. The motion must be served and filed not later than 15 days after notice of entry of judgment. The trial court may decide the motion even after an appeal is filed.”
However, N.D.R.Civ.P. 54(e)(2) does not require strict adherence when the district court is operating under a directive from a higher court.
Jorgenson v. Ratajczak,
[¶ 13] Motions may also be made on affidavits or on oral testimony. N.D.R.Civ.P. 43(e);
see also Binek v. Ziebarth,
[¶ 14] The procedures governing motions are primarily intended to put parties on notice of claims sought by adverse parties.
Shipley v. Shipley,
C
[¶ 15] Riemers argues thе State did not prove it paid the North Dakota Risk Management Fund for the attorney’s fees, only that the bill was submitted. “Whether this Court reviews the reasonableness of attorney’s fees under Rule 52 of the North Dakota Rules of Civil Procedure or under the abuse of discretion standard, facts are required.”
Gratech Co., Ltd. v. Wold Engineering, P.C.,
IV
[¶ 16] We conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion when determining the amount of attorney’s fees awarded; therefore, we affirm the district court’s order.