With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". v. Balough, 820 F.2d 1485, 1491 (9th Cir.1987) (KoZinski, J., concurring). 4 . In its Appendix B, the dissent, going to great lengths in an attempt to prove this point, lists other Guam and Saipan attorneys who might be competent to handle this type of case. In doing so, the dissent winds up proving the solid basis for the district court’s finding: none of these lawyers came forward to say they would have taken this case and at least one of them (J. Bradley Klemm) submitted an affidavit stating that most local firms would be unlikely to take on such a case. Infra. at 713 n. 31. 5 . Courts outside the Ninth Circuit have also recognized that enhancement for factors other than contingency may still be appropriate after Dague. See, e.g., Grant v. Martinez, 973 F.2d 96, 100 (2nd Cir.1992) (<HOLDING>), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 1053, 113 S.Ct. 978,

A: holding that both the lodestar and the percentage of the fund methods are permitted
B: holding that a fee substantially less than the lodestar amount is permissible
C: recognizing a strong presumption that lodestar represents a reasonable fee but noting that other considerations may lead to upward or downward departure from lodestar
D: holding that the court has discretion to double check the reasonableness of the percentage fee through a lodestar calculation
C.