Case Title: Lawrence Leiendecker, et al., Respondents, vs. Asian Women United of Minnesota, et al., Appellants (Al2-1978), Greenstein, Mabley & Wall, L.L.C., et al., Respondents, Ruvelson & Kautzer, Ltd., et al., Respondents, Maria Gloria Fressia, et al., Appellants (Al2-2015), Susan L. Triplett, Respondent. [ORDER]

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: minnesota

Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

Date: 2014-09-03T00:00:00Z

Document:
OFFICE OF

APPELLATE COURTS,
SEP 03 20K
STATE OF MINNESOTA FILED
IN SUPREME COURT

12-1978

12-2015
Lawrence Leiendecker, et al.,

Respondents,

vs,
Asian Women United of Minnesota, eta,
Appellants (A12-1978),
Greenstein, Mabley & Wall, L-L.C., etal,
Respondents,
Ruvelson & Kautzer, Ltd, etal,
Respondents,
Maria Gloria Fressia, etal,
‘Appellants (A12-2015),
‘Susan L. Triplett,
Respondent.
ORDER

On June 25, 2014, the court issued its opinion in this ease, Thereafter, the parties

have filed several petitions and motions,
Respondents Lawrence Leiendecker, et al. filed a timely petition for rehearing.

‘Women United of

 

Appellants As mnesota, etal, and Maria Gloria Fressia, etal, filed

 

«joint response, opposing the petition. After consideration of the parties’ arguments, the
petition will be granted in part, to correct the order for remand, and otherwise denied,

Appellants Asian Women United of Minnesota, et al, and Maria Gloria Fressia, et

 

al, filed a joint motion for attorney fees on appeal pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 554.04, subd. 1

 

(2012), and Minn, R. Civ, App. P. 127 and 139.06, subd. 1. Respondents opposed the
motion.

Minnesota Statutes section 554.04, subdivision 1, provides: “The court shall award
‘a moving party who prevails in a motion under this chapter reasonable attomey fees and
costs associated with the bringing ofthe motion.” Although appellants were successful in
reversing the decision of the court of appeals, they have not, to this point, “prevalfed] in a
‘motion under” chapter $54,

‘Appellants Asian Women United of Minnesota, etal, and Maria Gloria Fressia, et
al, each filed a notice, statement, and claim of costs and disbursements in connection with
the appeal in this court. Respondents objected to the taxation of costs and disbursements,
and appellants responded.

‘A prevailing party “shall recover" costs in the amount of $300 “upon a judgment on

the merits.” Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 139.01. An appellant generally prevail

 

if “a reversal
‘oF modification of the order or judgment from which the appeal is taken” is obtained. Vill.
of Blaine v. Indep. Sch Dist. No. 12, 265 Minn. 9, 24, 121 N.W.2d 183, 194 (1963). By
 

contrast, a respondent prevails if it “secures affirmance without modification.” Id

 

Because this appeal will be remanded to the court of appeals, the appeal is not yet
complete, and consequently there is no judgment on the merits. Judgment costs therefore
cannot be taxed.

Appellants” disbursements, however, are reasonable, with the exception of the filing
fee claimed by Maria Gloria Fressi, etal. Taxation of disbursements will therefore be

‘granted in pat.

 

Based upon all the files, records, and proceedings herein,

ITIS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

1. The petition of Lawrence Leiendecker, et al. for rehearing in the above-
‘entitled matter be, and the same is, granted in part to modify section IM, page 17 ofthe slip
‘opinion filed on June 25, 2014 to read as follows:

For the foregoing reasons, we reverse the decision of the court of
appeals and remand this case to the court of appeals for further proceedings
consistent with this opinion.

Reversed and remanded,

Said section Il previously read as follows:
For the foregoing reasons, we reverse the decision of the court of

appeals and remand this case to the district court for further proceedings
consistent with this opinion.

 

Reversed and remanded.
‘The attached slip of

 

1, amended as stated above, shall be substituted for the opinion,
filed June 25, 2014." The petition of Lawrence Leiendecker, et al. for rehearing in the
above-entitled matter shall be, and the same i, in all other respects denied.

2. ‘The motion of appellants Asian Women United of Minnesota, et al., and
Maria Gloria Fressia, et al. for attomey fees pursuant to Minn. Stat. § $44.04, subd. 1, be,
and the same is, denied without prejudice to appellants” right to renew that motion ata later
time in the district court, when and if they prevail on a motion under chapter 554,
Notwithstanding Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 139.06, subd. 1, the district court shall have
authority to set a reasonable timeframe forte filing of such renewed motion.

3. The request of appellants Asian Women United of Minnesota, et al., and

Maria Gloria Fressia, et al., for taxation of costs and disbursements be, and the same

 

granted in part, Asian Women United of Minnesota, et a, shall be entitled to
disbursements of $1,519.21, and Maria Gloria Fressia, et al, shall be eatitled to
disbursements of $130. The requestis inal other respects denied.

4, Judgment shall not be entered until the court of appeals has issued its
 We deny the motion of Frank T. Mabley and his law firm, Greenstein, Mabley &

Wall, LLL.C., (collectively “Mabley”) to file 2 brief in this court and we grant the
Leiendeckers’ motion to strike Mabley’s brief because, although Mabley represented
AWUM against the Leiendeckers in several lawsuits, he is not a party to the proceedings
‘before this court. The Leiendeckers are also entitled to any attorney fees and costs that
they incurred in responding to Mabley's brief in accordance with Minn. R. Civ. App.
P. 139.06 so long as they file and serve documentation to support their request within 15
days after this opinion is filed. Mabley's response, if any, to the Leiendeckers’ request
rust be filed and served in accordance with the requirements of Minn. R. Civ. App.
P, 139,06, subd. 2,