issues on appeal. As to the damages award, the City failed to bring a post-verdict motion pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50(b). See Nitco Holding Corp. v. Boujikian, 491 F.3d 1086, 1089 (9th Cir.2007) (stating that “failure to comply with [Rule 50(b) ] precludes a later challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence on appeal”). Without a Rule 50(b) motion, the City cannot now make a sufficiency claim as to the jury’s damages award. As to the City’s arguments on the attorneys’ fee award, an order on attorneys’ fees is collateral to, and separately appealable from, the judgment. See, e.g., Culinary & Serv. Emps. Union, AFL-CIO Local 555 v. Haw. Emp. Ben. Admin., Inc., 688 F.2d 1228, 1232 (9th Cir.1982); see also Kennedy v. Applause, Inc., 90 F.3d 1477, 1483 (9th Cir.1996) (<HOLDING>). “Compliance with these time limitations is
holding that an attorneys fees award is not appealable until the amount of the award is set recognizing that an attorneys fee award does not become final and ripe for review until the amount is set holding that an award of attorneys fees under supreme court rule 38 precursor to rule 222 did not preempt an award of attorneys fees to which one is otherwise entitled and thus appellant could seek an award of attorneys fees pursuant to section 1577300 which permits an award of fees for a party prevailing in an action against a state agency holding trial court had no authority to award attorneys fees when arbitrator had stated he would not award attorneys fees holding merely that the evidence was sufficient to support the award of attorneys fees