With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". at 737. We cannot agree with the school district that, as a matter of law, the school district’s offer constituted a nuisance settlement. The settlement should not prevent a finding that Koop is a prevailing party so long as she achieved “sought-after benefits” or vindicated civil rights. Chicano Police Officer’s Ass’n v. Stover, 624 F.2d 127, 131 (10th Cir.1980). It is not required that the settlement agreement designate plaintiff the prevailing party or contain the defendant’s admission of fault. Id. at 130. If the district court finds, as Koop argues, that her lawsuit caused the school district to begin enforcing its sexual harassment policy, then Koop has vindicated civil rights for the public good. See Cowan v. Prudential Ins. Co. of America, 935 F.2d 522, 527 (2d Cir.1991) (<HOLDING>); Kamrath v. Suburban Nat’l Bank, 363 N.W.2d

A: recognizing that civil rights lawsuits are private only in form
B: recognizing private right of action
C: recognizing that lawsuits that seek only injunctive relief or money that will go to the state treasury rather than to state citizens are not mass actions as defined by cafa thus it does not make sense to argue that these are the only lawsuits that will fall within the mass action exception
D: holding that relators are not officers because they seek to vindicate not only public rights but their own private rights as well
A.