With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". See Welch, 480 F.3d at 948-49; Loranger, 10 F.3d at 783. Our decision to impose an across-the-board reduction of twenty percent was therefore reasonable. Third, Plaintiffs note that we failed to consider its application for litigation expenses of $1,558.34. Docket No. 103. Section 1988 provides that we may award both attorney’s fees and litigation costs. 42 U.S.C. § 1988. We erred in neglecting to award Plaintiffs $1,558.34 in litigation costs. Accordingly, we modify our order to reflect an award of $65,992.00 in attorney’s fees and $1,558.34 in costs, for a total of $67,550.34. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e). Finally, we correct our order to reflect our intention that no attorney’s fees shall be awarded against any of the individual members of the Electoral Commission. Compare Docket No. 100 (<HOLDING>) with Docket No. 90 (stating that single

A: holding that fees should not be awarded where plaintiff also argued a claim under  523a6
B: holding that attorney fees awarded under the common fund doctrine do not constitute part of a plaintiffs claim against the defendant and cannot be considered for amountincontroversy purposes
C: holding that fees may be awarded for litigating amount of fees only where language of statute supports such conclusion
D: holding that fees shall not be awarded against defendant cruzmaldonado a member of the electoral commission
D.