Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

Hjelm v. Prometheus (2016)

Citation
Hjelm v. Prometheus (2016)
Parent Document
Hjelm v. Prometheus (2016)
Jurisdiction
California (state)
Effective Date
2016-10-05

Full Text

2,262 chars
3
       Meanwhile, following the June 12 hearing, three minute orders were entered that
day. One denied a new trial. Another, that pertinent here, ordered that “Plaintiff’s
Motion for an Order, Awarding Reasonable Attorney’s Fees . . . [is] GRANTED. [¶]
Amount of attorneys fees to be determined after further briefing by counsel.”
       On June 30, Judge Bergeron filed two formal orders, one denying Prometheus’s
motion to tax costs, the other denying Prometheus’s motion for new trial. He also filed a
final judgment after verdict which, as pertinent here, recited that he “granted [the
Hjelms’s] motion for an order awarding reasonable attorney’s fees in the amount of
$326,475.00 The court finds that the amount of fees requested is reasonable. Therefore,
[the Hjelms] are awarded $326,475.00 in attorney’s fees.”
       On August 11, Prometheus filed its notice of appeal.
                                      DISCUSSION
       Introduction
       Prometheus has filed a 64-page appellant’s opening brief. It has two arguments.
The first, comprising some 70 percent of the argument, is that the attorney fee award
“was incorrect and should be reversed.” The second is that the “underlying verdict
should be reversed.” Since the second argument, if successful, would render the attorney
fee award—and the first argument—moot, we begin with it. And conclude it cannot
succeed—the appeal as to the verdict is untimely, not to mention premised on a factual
representation in utter disregard of the rules of appellate procedure.
       No Appeal of the Verdict Can Succeed
       As noted above, judgment on the jury verdict was entered on April 11. Notice of
entry was served on April 11 and filed on April 14. So, under the general rule, any
appeal would have to be filed within sixty days. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.104.)
However, on April 25, Prometheus moved for a new trial. And, as noted, Judge Bergeron
denied it by minute order of June 12. An order denying new trial was approved by
Prometheus’s counsel on June 24 and filed on June 30. Thus California Rules of Court,
rule 8.108(b)(1)(B) governed the time to appeal: “If any party serves and files a valid
notice of intention to move for a new trial, the following extensions of time apply: [¶]