Dist. Ct. did not err in reducing plaintiff’s request for attorney fees in class action under Telephone Consumer Protection Act, where parties agreed to $6.1.settlement, but where only 1,820 class members actually submitted claims totaling approximately $400,000. While plaintiff’s attorney submitted over $2 million in attorney fees based upon percentage of potential recovery, Dist. Ct. could properly use lodestar method and apply 1.5 risk modifier to calculate fees at $1,147,698.70. Ct. rejected plaintiff’s contention that Dist. Ct. improperly engaged in ex post facto rationalization for fee reduction and further found that Dist. Ct. could properly consider paucity of class recovery as compared to requested fee award, when deciding whether to apply lodestar method, as opposed to percentage method, for purposes of determining fee award.