## Facts

- Credit-card customers brought a certified class action challenging Wells Fargo’s standardized “late” and “overlimit” fees as unlawful liquidated damages.
- The class obtained a money judgment exceeding $5.2 million.
- After the merits judgment, plaintiffs sought attorney fees, costs, and litigation expenses under Code Civ. Proc. § 1021.5 and Civ. Code § 1717.
- The trial court awarded $1,700,355 in attorney fees (lodestar plus a 1.5 multiplier), $196,997 in nonrecoverable litigation expenses (primarily expert fees), and $50,000 for preparing the fee motion, plus recoverable costs, totaling $1,958,509.
- Wells Fargo appealed the postjudgment award, arguing § 1021.5 did not apply, a common fund barred fee shifting, the multiplier was improper, and expert and other nonroutine expenses were not awardable.

## Issues

1. Whether a § 1021.5 fee award is precluded when the litigation results in a common-fund recovery.
2. Whether the action met § 1021.5’s requirements: enforcement of an important public right, significant benefit to the public or a large class, necessity and financial burden of private enforcement, and that fees should not be paid from the recovery in the interest of justice.
3. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by applying a 1.5 lodestar multiplier.
4. Whether expert-witness fees and other ordinarily nonrecoverable litigation expenses may be awarded as part of a § 1021.5 fee award.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal affirmed the award of $1,958,509 in attorney fees, costs, and expenses.
- The court held that the existence of a common fund did not bar an award under § 1021.5.
- The court concluded the class action qualified as a consumer-protection case enforcing important public rights and conferring a significant benefit on a large class.
- The court held the trial court acted within its discretion in applying a 1.5 multiplier, including reducing the requested multiplier based on partial lack of success.
- The court held expert fees and other necessary litigation expenses, though not routinely taxable as costs, may be included within a § 1021.5 award.

## Legal Principles

- Code Civ. Proc. § 1021.5 may authorize fee shifting to the defendant even if the litigation also results in a common-fund recovery.
- A consumer class action can satisfy § 1021.5 when it enforces important rights affecting the public interest and confers a significant benefit on the public or a large class.
- The “necessity and financial burden of private enforcement” requirement is met where effective enforcement would be economically impracticable without fee shifting due to complexity, cost, and litigation risk.
- The “interest of justice” element permits shifting fees to the defendant to avoid diluting class recovery and to further the statutory purpose, even when a fund exists.
- Trial courts have discretion to apply a lodestar multiplier in § 1021.5 cases, subject to abuse-of-discretion review.
- Reasonably necessary litigation expenses, including expert-witness fees, may be awarded as part of a § 1021.5 attorney-fee award even if they are not routinely recoverable as costs under § 1033.5.

## Conclusion

The Court of Appeal upheld a substantial postjudgment award under § 1021.5, ruling that a common-fund recovery does not foreclose statutory fee shifting, that the consumer class action satisfied the statute’s public-interest and burden requirements, that a 1.5 multiplier was within the trial court’s discretion, and that expert and other necessary litigation expenses could be included in the award.


Beasley v. Wells Fargo Bank, 235 Cal. App. 3d 1407, 1 Cal. Rptr. 2d 459 (Ct. App. 1991)