Plaintiff and Defendant by imposing upon Defendant 'a legally enforceable obligation to pay Plaintiff $130,000.00”). Given this material alteration in the parties’ legal relationship, this court turns to the second aspect of the prevailing party inquiry, to wit, the existence of judicial imprimatur on the change. On a substantive basis, the court performed little review of the merits. Defendant therefore legitimately and understandably argues that the Rule 68 judgment awarding $15,000 was not on the merits. Instead, it was simply a voluntary change in conduct unaccompanied by the required judicial imprimatur, according to defendant. The Buckhannon opinion unequivocally rejects the catalyst theory as a means to confer prevailing party status. Buckhannon, 532 U.S. at 610, 121 S.Ct. 1835 (<HOLDING>); Doe v. Boston Public Schools, 358 F.3d 20, 24
recognizing that an attorneys fee award does not become final and ripe for review until the amount is set holding that in determining the reasonableness of attorneys fees under federal fee shifting statutes courts may not enhance the fee award above the lodestar amount to compensate attorneys for assuming the risk of receiving no payment for their services if the lawsuit failed holding that  catalyst theory1 is not a permissible basis for attorneys fee award under ada and another federal statute holding that attorneys fee statute using shall language is not discretionary holding that attorneys fee award in a common fund case must be  reasonable under the circumstances