Milner v. Farmers Ins

4 Citing cases

  1. Milner v. Farmers Ins

    748 N.W.2d 608 (Minn. 2008)   Cited 82 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the MFLSA and PWA are "related" and "provide a comprehensive statutory scheme for wages and payment in Minnesota and should be interpreted in light of each other"

    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.

  2. In re Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co. Overtime Pay Litig

    638 F. Supp. 2d 1290 (D. Colo. 2009)   Cited 27 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law Rule 23 portion of "hybrid" class action because doing so would "would undermine Congress's intent to limit the number of plaintiffs in a FLSA action"

    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.

  3. Karl v. Uptown Drink, LLC

    No. A12-0166 (Minn. Ct. App. Aug. 6, 2012)   Cited 1 times

    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."

  4. Rucker v. Schmidt

    768 N.W.2d 408 (Minn. Ct. App. 2009)   Cited 10 times
    Holding that when an attorney is accused of fraud, "general principles of attorney immunity [are] not appropriate"

    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).