With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Id. We agree with the district court that the large size of the settlement fund obtained by Class Counsel relative to recoveries in other cases does not, ipso facto, mean that it is an extraordinary result. Accordingly, we hold that the district court did not exceed the bounds of its discretion in denying a results multiplier after concluding that the results in this case, when viewed in the context of all relevant circumstances, did not “exceed the extraordinary.” Id. While Class Counsel argue that the result obtained is “extraordinary” because of its size, they also appear to quarrel with the district court’s use of the “exceptional success” standard articulated in the statutory fee case Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886, 900-01, 104 S.Ct. 1541, 1549-50, 79 L.Ed.2d 891 (1984) (<HOLDING>); see also Stewart v. Gates, 987 F.2d 1450,

A: holding that a plaintiff need only show that the results of a polygraph examination were a factor in the termination of employment and rejecting requirement that results be the sole factor for employees discharge
B: holding that prejudgment interest should be awarded in maritime collision cases except in peculiar or exceptional circumstances
C: holding that bloodtest results would be irrelevant in action challenging parentage where the results could not be compared to information relating to necessary parties
D: holding that in a statutory fee case the results obtained factor was already subsumed in the lodestar and that results multipliers should be awarded only in some cases of exceptional success
D.