The court of appeals affirmed in part as modified, reversed in part, and remanded. Milner v. Farmers Ins. Exch., 725 N.W.2d 138, 147 (Minn.App. 2006). The court of appeals concluded that the district court had the authority to order injunctive relief and civil penalties under the MFLSA but that civil penalties are payable to the state, not to the individual litigants.
It appears that the Minnesota Court of Appeals has determined that employees can receive injunctive relief for state overtime claims. See Milner v. Farmers Ins. Exch., 725 N.W.2d 138, 143 (Minn.Ct.App. 2006). However, the availability of injunctive relief under state wage and overtime laws has not yet been addressed by state courts in Wisconsin, Ohio and Illinois.
This court concluded that the use of the multiplier was inappropriate and remanded for "an award of the lodestar without the multiplier." Id. at 620; see Milner v. Farmers Ins. Exch., 725 N.W.2d 138, 146-47 (Minn. App. 2006). The supreme court agreed that a multiplier was inappropriate, Milner, 748 N.W.2d at 624-25, but reversed and remanded for recalculation of the lodestar amount because the district court determined that the hours expended, less ten percent, were reasonable, but "did not mention, let alone consider anywhere in its attorney fee analysis, the plaintiffs' complete failure to prove their claim for millions of dollars in unpaid overtime compensation."
In the context of res judicata, "[p]rivity requires a person so identified in interest with another that he represents the same legal right." Milner v. Farmers Ins. Exch., 725 N.W.2d 138, 142 (Minn.App. 2006) (quoting Beutz v. A.O. Smith Harvestore Prods., Inc., 431 N.W.2d 528, 533 (Minn. 1988)), rev'd in part on other grounds, 748 N.W.2d 608 (Minn. 2008).