Beasley

Beasley v. Wells Fargo Bank

Bad Law
1 Cal. Rptr. 2d 459·1991 Cal. App. LEXIS 1300·235 Cal. App. 3d 1407·91 Daily Journal DAR 13951·91 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 8998
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaNovember 12, 1991A049948California4,830 words

Opinion

Opinion

Reardon, J.

I. Introduction

This case is a companion to Beasley v. Wells Fargo Bank, A048490, ante, page 1383 [ 1 Cal.Rptr.2d 446 ], in which we affirm a $5,227,617 judgment in a class action which challenged Wells Fargo Bank’s assessment of fees against credit card customers who failed to make timely payments or exceeded their credit limits. In the present action we affirm a subsequent judgment requiring the bank to pay the plaintiffs their attorney fees, costs and expenses in the total sum of $1,958,509, based on California’s “private attorney general" statute. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1021.5.)

We hold as follows: (1) the award was not precluded by the fact the litigation resulted in a common fund recovery from which attorney fees could have been paid; (2) this consumer protection action was in the public interest for purposes of a private attorney general award; (3) the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in applying a lodestar multiplier to the fee award; and (4) expert witness fees and other nonrecoverable expenses may be awarded under the private attorney general statute.

II. Background

After judgment on the merits, the plaintiffs moved for an award of $1,133,570 in…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.