With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". [Adv. Doc. No. 272, p. 3]. The Court then issued a memorandum opinion and corresponding order setting forth which causes of action were dismissed with prejudice and which were remanded to state court for further prosecution. [Adv. Doc. Nos. 272 & 274]. The Court ultimately concluded that only 51 out of the 87 causes of action alleged in the Original Petition were derivative claims, either in whole or in part. [Adv. Doc. Nos. 272 & 274]. Because the Non-Wilson Vukelich Defendant from $249,230.00 to $147,045.70 (i.e., $249,230.00 x 0.59). b. Lumped Fee Entries Courts may consider other factors, in addition to those set forth in Johnson, in determining whether to adjust the lodestar fee — such as the lumping of fee entries. Arnold, 2000 WL 354395, at *7-8 (citing Shipes, 987 F.2d at 320) (<HOLDING>) (internal quotations and citations omitted).

A: holding that in determining the reasonableness of attorneys fees under federal fee shifting statutes courts may not enhance the fee award above the lodestar amount to compensate attorneys for assuming the risk of receiving no payment for their services if the lawsuit failed
B: holding that because counsels lumping of fees was not considered in  calculating the revised lodestar amount it could serve as a basis for adjusting the fee award
C: holding that where a state statute provides for the award of attorneys fees those fees can be considered as part of the amount in controversy for the purpose of determining federal diversity jurisdiction
D: holding proper basis for award of fees
B.