recognized that “a comparison of damages awarded to damages sought is required,” while also emphasizing that “the district court must consider the excellence of the overall result, not merely the amount of damages won.” Id. at 1103-04. Although it would have been preferable for the district court to have provided a clearer statement regarding the relationship between the relief sought to the relief obtained, the explanation offered here was adequate under- the circumstances. The district court made clear that it “considered the relationship between the amount of the fee awarded and the results obtained.” See Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 437, 103 S.Ct. 1933, 76 L.Ed.2d 40 (1983). Nothing more was required. See Muniz v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 738 F.3d 214, 225 (9th Cir. 2013) (<HOLDING>). 3. BNSF’s argument that the district court
holding that district judges failure to recuse was harmless error where the underlying question was patently clear and so there was no need to vacate the district courts decision and to remand to another district court judge to make the same clear determination holding that although the district court was not required to discuss each of the factors on the record a decision to dismiss stands a better chance on appeal if the appellate court has the benefit of the district courts reasoning holding that it is within the courts discretion to award both reinstatement and punitive damages for violation of  2114 although finding that the district courts decision not to award such remedies did not constitute an abuse of discretion holding that the record supported the district courts award of damages holding there was no abuse of discretion where although the district court did not discuss the relationship that the damages awarded  had to the damages  sought the district courts opinion made clear that it was well aware of this relationship