The trial court did not abuse its discretion in declining to apportion plaintiff’s attorney fees between the Song-Beverly Act claim (on which fees were awardable by statute) and the fraudulent concealment claim (a non-fee-bearing claim) since the two claims were based on a common set of facts.  In selecting a 2.0 multiplier on fees, the trial court did not improperly double count enhancement factors.  Instead, it properly considered two different factors:  (1) that the plaintiff’s attorneys had a contingency fee agreement with plaintiff and so would be paid only if they won, and (2) excellent result.  The excellent result enhancement is not limited to public interest litigation.