Court Opinion

ID: 9687328
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 16:25:17.217292+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:18:26.207628
License: Public Domain

GILBERT, Justice
(concurring in part, dissenting in part).
I concur with the majority’s holding that Minn.Stat. § 325F.69, subd. 1 (1998) (CFA) applies to an individual consumer involved in a one-on-one transaction. However, I respectfully dissent from the majority’s conclusion that Minn.Stat. § 8.31, subd. 3a (1998), the private attorney general statute, is not applicable to this transaction. I agree with Justice Page’s dissent in its entirety, including the point that the majority artificially engrafts a “public benefit” requirement onto an unambiguous statute. I write separately, however, to emphasize my disagreement with the majority’s holding that bringing an action to prosecute conduct, which we hold falls under the prohibitions of the CFA, would not serve the public interest. Further, I conclude that the majority’s holding is an unreasonable result in that section 8.31, subdivision 3a, explicitly incorporates section 325F.69 within its purview. We have no legal authority to read out of a statute that which the legislature has explicitly included.
Even if the majority is correct in finding some implicit requirement of public benefit in the private attorney general statute, I disagree with the majority’s resolution of the fact question at the appellate level. As the majority notes, respondent sold this same restaurant to another purchaser later the same day after respondent fraudulently induced appellant to nullify the contract of sale. It is quite possible that enforcing the fraudulent business laws against this particular respondent will have a benefit to more than appellant-purchaser. This fact question should be remanded to the district court. I, would, however, interpret this newly discovered “public benefit” requirement to include *316private enforcement of the consumer protection laws.
The majority holds that although the CFA is intended to protect even the consumer defrauded in an “isolated one-on-one transaction,” and even if that same consumer successfully brings suit under the CFA for that unlawful conduct, he is not entitled to reasonable attorney fees under section 8.31, subdivision 3a, because such a transaction does not enhance the public interest generally. That holding is contrary to the purpose of section 8.31, subdivision 3a, which, as the majority acknowledges, was intended to provide incentives for injured consumers to privately enforce the fraudulent business practices laws by eliminating financial barriers to prosecution. See Church of Nativity of Our Lord v. WatPro, Inc., 491 N.W.2d 1, 8 (Minn.1992). When “any person” is injured by a violation of those laws and successfully prosecutes the violator, that consumer has benefited the public by attempting to prevent the fraudulent business conduct of that particular defendant and alleviating, economically and in terms of time and preparation for investigation and litigation, the burden on the attorney general’s office to enforce the laws. As we said in Church of Nativity, a case involving an individual purchaser involved in a single transaction, “pursuit of a remedy has involved much time and labor; it has been difficult, lengthy and expensive. If there are no attorney fees awarded in this case, [the consumer] will spend virtually all of its damage award paying its attorneys. The private attorney general statute was intended to cover just this type of case.” 491 N.W.2d at 8. It creates an unreasonable result to hold that enforcement of the state’s laws does not benefit the public generally.
We hold that appellant is a person injured by a violation of section 325F.69, subdivision 1. Therefore, the clear, unambiguous language of section 8.31, subdivision 3a, dictates that he is entitled to attorney fees. Accordingly, I would reverse the court of appeals and remand to the district court for a determination of appropriate attorney fees and investigative costs.