# Hoang Minh Ly v. Nystrom

> Supreme Court of Minnesota · August 3, 2000 · 615 N.W.2d 302

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9687326

## Case

- **Full name:** Hoang Minh LY D/B/A Lee’s Garden, Petitioner, Appellant, v. Kim NYSTROM, Et Al., Respondents
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Minnesota
- **Decided:** August 3, 2000
- **Citations:** 615 N.W.2d 302; 2000 Minn. LEXIS 419; 2000 WL 1060508
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurring in part by Page
- **Judges:** Stringer, Gilbert
- **Cited by:** 146 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9687326

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- concluding that Ly, who was the buy er of a restaurant business, could not recover attorney fees in a subdivision 3a claim against the seller because the claim provided no benefit to the public
- concluding that there is no public benefit when party was defrauded “in a single one-on-one transaction in which the fraudulent misrepresentation . . . was made only to the appellant”
- noting the distinction between “experienced commercial parties and ordinary consumer transactions and finding that because the party was a consumer, not a merchant, the transaction fell within the scope of consumer transactions regulated by the Consumer Fraud Act
- holding that plaintiffs who bring claims under the private attorney general statute must also “demonstrate that their cause of action benefits the public”
- holding that the court must consider whether the cause of action benefits the public in awarding attorney fees under the private attorney general statute

## Opinion text

*315 PAGE, Justice
(concurring in part, dissenting in part).
I respectfully dissent. I agree with that portion of the court’s opinion holding that the Consumer Fraud Act applies to a cause of action brought by a plaintiff who was defrauded in an isolated one-on-one purchase of a restaurant for the purpose of selling restaurant services. I disagree, however, with that part of the opinion holding that Minn.Stat. § 8.31, subd. 3a (1998), does not permit an award of attorney fees in cases arising under the Consumer Fraud Act unless the plaintiff can demonstrate that the cause of action has a public benefit. “[When] the words of a statute are clear and free from ambiguity, we have no right to construe or interpret the statute’s language.” Tuma v. Commissioner of Econ. Sec., 386 N.W.2d 702, 706 (Minn.1986). “Our duty in such a case is to give effect to the statute’s plain meaning.” Id. The words the legislature used in Minn.Stat. § 8.31, subd. 3a are clear and free from ambiguity. Subdivision 3a, in relevant part, reads:
In addition to the remedies otherwise provided by law, any person injured by a violation of any of the laws referred to in subdivision 1 may bring a civil action and recover damages, together with costs and disbursements, including costs of investigation and reasonable attorney’s fees, and receive other equitable relief as determined by the court.
Minn.Stat. § 8.31, subd. 3a (emphasis added).
Had the legislature intended to limit the scope of section 8.31, subdivision 3a, to those causes of action that have a public benefit, it could have easily done so. Whether for good or for ill, by the plain words of the statute, it did not. This court is not authorized nor is it this court’s role to read into a statute that which the legislature, by its plain language, has left out.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9687326. Public record. Not legal advice.