With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". claim of breach of an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. In the subsequent damages phase of the trial, notwithstanding the favorable verdict, the jury awarded PH zero damages on this claim. The jury found against Cog-netics on all of its counterclaims. The district court found no violations of ch. 93A by either party and denied all requests for declaratory and injunctive relief. Finally, the court denied Cognetics’ motion for judgment n.o.v. or new trial, and denied PH’s motion for attorneys’ fees. II. DISCUSSION A. PH’s Appeal 1. PH’s Claim for Attorneys’ Fees PH argues that it is entitled to attorneys’ fees under section 21 of the Agreement because it “prevailed” on its covenant of good faith a h. Dist., 489 U.S. 782, 792, 109 S.Ct. 1486, 1493, 103 L.Ed.2d 866 (1989) (<HOLDING>); Guglietti v. Secretary of Health and Human

A: holding that civil rights plaintiff seeking attorneys fees must be able to point to a resolution of the dispute which changes the legal relationship between itself and the defendant beyond this absolute limitation a technical victory may be so insignificant  as to be insufficient to support prevailing party status
B: holding that the party prevailing on the significant issues in the litigation is the party that should be considered the prevailing party for attorneys fees
C: holding the prevailing party inquiry does not turn on the magnitude of the relief obtained in response to the question whether a nominal damages award is the sort of technical insignificant victory that cannot confer prevailing party status
D: recognizing that a school district must be a prevailing party in order to be entitled to attorneys fees under the idea
A.