Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): services of lawyers of reasonably comparable skill and reputation.” Jordan v. Multnomah County, 815 F.2d 1258, 1263 (9th Cir.1987). The district court also failed to discuss any of the Kerr factors in determining whether to adjust the lodestar amount. See Kerr v. Screen Extras Guild, Inc., 526 F.2d 67, 69-70 (9th Cir.1975). Although a district court is not required to analyze every Kerr factor, “the need for meaningful review requires remand where, as here, the record on appeal fails to indicate which, if any, of the Kerr guidelines were considered.” Moore v. Jas. H. Matthews & Co., 682 F.2d 830, 838-39 (9th Cir.1982). The district court should have addressed, at a minimum, the “extent of success” factor. See McGinnis v. Ky. Fried Chicken of Cal., 51 F.3d 805, 810 (9th Cir.1995) (<HOLDING>). Defendants apparently sought $1.3 million at 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that in order to present a federal question a right or immunity created by the constitution or laws of the united states must be an element and an essential one of the plaintiffs cause of action quoting franchise tax bd v constr laborers vacation trust 463 us 1 1011 103 sct 2841 77 led2d 420 1983 (B) holding that attorneys fee award in a common fund case must be  reasonable under the circumstances (C) holding that a court may not disregard the doctrine of harmless error simply in order to chastise what the court views as prosecutorial overreaching  quoting united states v hasting 461 us 499 507 103 sct 1974 76 led2d 96 1983 (D) holding that an attorneys fee award must be reasonable in relation to the success achieved quoting hensley v eckerhart 461 us 424 436 103 sct 1933 76 led2d 40 1983 (E) holding that hensley v eckerhart applies to a fee award for seeking fees
Output (English): holding that attorneys fee award in a common fund case must be  reasonable under the circumstances