Page 33 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 97188, * proposed lodestar and billable hour totals based on 96.5 hours 1/81 from W. Yanchunis at $900 per hour and 32.7 hours from Ms. Ponder at $150 per hour. for a firm lodestar of $91,755. See ECF No. 96-9 Ex. 2. As discussed, the Court may apply a multiplier to the lodestar "to account for the contingent nature or risk involved in a particular case and the quality of the attorney's work." Rite Aid, 396 F.3d at 306. The multiplier "need not fall within any pre-defined range, provided that the District Court's analysis justifies the award," id., but courts "routinely find in complex class action cases that a lodestar multiplier between one and four is fair and reasonable." Saini, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 66242, 2015 WL 2448846, at *16 (approving multipliers of 1.09 and 1.13); see also Boone v. City of Philadelphia, 668 F. Supp. 2d 693, 714-15 (E.D. Pa. 2009) (approving multiplier of 2.3); McCoy v. Health Net, Inc., 569 F. Supp. 2d 448, 479 (D.N.J. 2008) (approving multiplier of 2.3). Because Plaintiffs report a total of $133,358.30 in expenses, ECF No. 86 at 2, the portion of the total $2,320,000 award attributable to attorneys' fees alone is $2,186,641.70. The lodestar multiplier for Defendants' proposed mean rate fee, obtained by dividing $2,186,641.70 by $1,917,673.40, would be approximately 1.14. This multiplier falls well within the range approved by courts in this Circuit for complex, multi-state cases such as this one. 3. The percentage cross-check supports an award in p791 the lodestar range Having determined a range of attorneys' fees under a lodestar analysis, the Court now cross-checks this analysis using the percentage-of-recovery method. See Ins. Brokerage, 579 F.3d at 280; Saini, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 66242, 2015 WL 2448846, at *16 (performing percentage-of-recovery cross-check after adopting lodestar method to award attorneys' fees). The Third Circuit has identified a non-exhaustive list of factors