Lumber, Inc. v. Anderson, 191 Wis.2d 278, 528 N.W.2d 502, 504, 508 (App.1995). Unlike similar rules and statutes in other jurisdictions, those in Arizona do not specify when a motion for attorneys’ fees must be filed in relation to entry of final judgment. Compare A.R.S. § 12-349 with Ga.Code Ann. § 9-15-14(e) (Supp.1996) (motion may be made during action, and not later than 45 days after judgment) and Idaho Code § 12-123(2)(a) (1990) (21 days) and Ohio Rev.Code Ann. § 2323.51(B)(1) (1995) (21 days) and D.Conn.L.R. 9(f) (30 days) and D.Md.R. 109 (14 days). Many courts treat motions for attorneys’ fees as independent claims which are collateral to a decision on the merits. E.g., Budi-nich v. Becton Dickinson & Co., 486 U.S. 196, 202-03, 108 S.Ct. 1717, 1722, 100 L.Ed.2d 178 (1988) (<HOLDING>); United States v. RG & B Contractors, Inc., 21
holding that existence of outstanding claims for attorneys fees do not affect determination whether district court entered a final decision for purposes of 28 usc  1291 holding that a decision on the merits was a final decision when the recoverability or amount of attorney fees for the litigation remained to be determined regardless of whether such fees were sought under statute case law or contract holding that the party seeking contractual attorneys fees is entitled to a decision on the merits holding that a decision on the merits is a final decision for purposes of filing an appeal pursuant to 28 usc  1291 whether or not there remains for adjudication a request for attorneys fees attributable to the case holding that a district courts denial of a claim of qualified immunity is an appealable final decision within the meaning of 28 usc  1291 to the extent that it turns on an issue of law