5
“In Torres, supra, 154 Cal.App.4th 214, the issue was whether the amendment of
the judgment to include an amount for attorney fees and costs was a substantial
amendment, enabling the court to consider the propriety of granting summary judgment.
(Id. at p. 221.) Again citing The Rutter Group treatise on civil appeals and writs, the
Torres court concluded that there is no substantial modification to a judgment when it is
merely amended to add costs, attorney fees and interest. (Torres, supra, 154 Cal.App.4th
at p. 222.) . . . . The cases that have developed this rule with respect to attorney fees and
interest appear to find ultimate support for their position in the line of cases that hold that
postjudgment awards of attorney fees, costs and interest are separately appealable matters
collateral to the actual judgment if they are not included therein. (See Robinson v. City of
Yucaipa (1994) 28 Cal.App.4th 1506, 1517–1518 [Fourth Dist., Div. Two]; Grant v. List
& Lathrop (1992) 2 Cal.App.4th 993, 996–998; Norman I. Krug Real Estate Investments,
Inc. v. Praszker (1990) 220 Cal.App.3d 35, 46.) In light of these rulings and the line of
cases that they represent, it makes sense to conclude that a separately appealable order
after final judgment does not substantially modify the judgment itself for purposes of
computing the time in which to file a notice of appeal. Any problem the parties might
have with the amendment can be pursued through a separate appeal of the postjudgment
order.”
In sum, to the extent the appeal sought to attack the verdict, it was too late. But
even if it were not, we would refuse to consider it, because Prometheus’s brief violates
settled rules of appellate procedure.
To put the issue in context, Prometheus’s brief statement of facts refers to the
Hjelms’s “contention that their apartment . . . was uninhabitable,” ignoring, of course, all
the evidence in the case supporting the facts of the bedbug infestation. Prometheus’s
brief then goes on to discuss the companies it hired to address the problem, and on which
it relied, ignoring, along the way, just what Prometheus’s own responsibility was—and
how it was not met.
And as to the raw sewage issue, this is how Prometheus’s brief describes it:
“Another issue at trial was the Hjelms’ complaint of sewage in the common area behind