With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". to expressly rule on each one of Plaintiffs’ objections to Defendants’ fee request, McGrath v. County of Nev., 67 F.3d 248, 255 (9th Cir.1995), Plaintiffs raised serious questions about several issues that the district court should have addressed, including (1) whether there was duplication of work, see Hensley, 461 U.S. at 434 (“Counsel for the prevailing party should make a good-faith effort to exclude from a fee request hours that are excessive, redundant, or otherwise unnecessary ....”); cf. McGrath, 67 F.3d at 255 (“[T]he participation of more than one attorney does not necessarily constitute an unnecessary duplication of effort.” (internal quotation marks omitted)); (2) whether some of the invoices included fees that were not charged to the client, see Hensley, 461 U.S. at 434 (<HOLDING>); and (3) whether the use of block-billing and

A: holding segregation was required in part because the claims have significantly different elements than the claim for which attorneys fees are recoverable
B: holding attorneys fees not generally recoverable unless party prevails under cause of action for which attorneys fees are recoverable and damages are recovered
C: holding that attorneys fees are not recoverable for a nonprevailing party in a declaratory judgment action
D: holding that fees are not recoverable for work for which the client could not be charged
D.