question that the end result represented a pronounced legal and pecuniary triumph for her. In the process, she prevailed on her most significant claims. When interrelatedness is in question, the overall degree of the prevailing party’s success is an important datum. See Garrity, 752 F.2d at 734; see also Hensley, 461 U.S. at 435, 103 S.Ct. at 1940. Moreover, the district court wrote a thorough and detailed opinion reviewing the imbrication between the successful and unsuccessful claims. See Fees Op. at 18-22. The court’s words carry considerable convictive force. Although we, if writing on a pristine page, might have been more miserly, we are constrained in this instance to defer to the trial court’s determination that the requisite linkage was forged. See Wagenmann, 829 F.2d at 225 (<HOLDING>). Before leaving this terrain, we feel impelled
holding that the separate and distinct claims of two or more plaintiffs cannot be aggregated to establish jurisdiction recognizing that separate ratings can be assigned for separate periods of time based on facts found holding that a claim for damages based on creditors failure to honor a rescission notice is separate and distinct from any claims associated with disclosures at the time of closing holding that a refusal to separate out time spent on distinct claims is within the trial courts discretion if the claims are so factually imbricated  as to make separate treatment of the constituent attorney time inappropriate holding that the relevant time is the time of the employment decision