Silver v. Pacific American Fish Co., 118 Cal. Rptr. 3d 581

Silver filed a cross-complaint against Pacific, Paul Huh, and Peter Huh arising from an asset purchase and related employment agreement.
Pacific asserted defenses including lack of standing and judicial estoppel based on Silver's prior bankruptcy.
The trial court bifurcated the trial on standing/estoppel and ruled for Pacific.
Pacific moved for attorney fees; Silver filed a notice of appeal February 25, 2009 before the ruling.
On March 26, 2009 the court granted part of Pacific's attorney fees and costs; Silver's appeal challenged that order.
The appellate court held Silver's appeal from the attorney fees order untimely and dismissed that portion; the judgment and other orders were affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Timeliness of appeal from fee order	Silver argued his appeal encompassed the fee order.	Pacific argued the fee order was a separately appealable postjudgment order.	Untimely; separate appeal required; dismissed.
Grant exception applicability	Silver relied on Grant to argue the judgment encompassed the fee award.	Pacific argued Grant does not apply where entitlement and amount were litigated separately.	Grant does not apply; fee issue separately appealable.

Grant v. List & Lathrop, 2 Cal.App.4th 993 (Cal. App. 1992) (premature notice can cover later fee amounts only in limited Grant context)
Colony Hill v. Ghamaty, 143 Cal.App.4th 1156 (Cal. App. 2006) (Grant limited; here entitlement not adjudicated in judgment; separate postjudgment review required)
Praszker v. Krug Real Estate, 220 Cal.App.3d 35 (Cal. App. 1990) (fees awarded in postjudgment cost proceedings; separate appeal required for fee order)
First American Title Co. v. Mirzaian, 108 Cal.App.4th 956 (Cal. App. 2003) (timeliness; notice of appeal before ruling on fee motion is ordinarily premature)
Praszker, Norman I., 220 Cal.App.3d 35 (Cal. App. 1990) (postjudgment costs/attorney's fees reviewed separately; timely appeal required)