Here is an interesting case. In In re Lugo, 164 Cal.App.4th 1522 (Jul. 21, 2008), the class action device was used in the context of a habeas corpus proceeding to compel the Board of Parole Hearings to provide timely parole consideration hearings as required by the Penal Code. The class was defined as "all prisoners serving indeterminate terms of life with the possibility of parole who have approached or exceeded their minimum eligible parole dates without receiving their parole hearings within the time required" by law. The trial court issued a remedial injunction requiring the Board to take various steps to come into compliance with the law, then awarded attorneys' fees to the prisoners' counsel, including a 1.5 multiplier. Slip op. at 3-5.
The Court of Appeal (First Appellate District, Division Three) reversed certain aspects of the remedial injunction, but affirmed the attorneys' fees award, holding that the 1.5 multiplier (a figure that is "not large by comparison to those typically seen in reported cases") was not an abuse of discretion. Slip op. at 21-23.