They did not appeal the district court’s denial of fees' below but have requested fees on appeal, claiming that Smith’s appeal was frivolous. “An application for an award of fees on appeal should be filed as a separate motion within 30 days of the entry of final judgment in this court.” Spooner v. EEN, Inc., 644 F.3d 62, 71 n. 6 (1st Cir.2011); see also 1st Cir. R. 39.1. Should the defendants-appellees wish to pursue their fee application further, they will need to follow the proper procedure. The judgment of the district court is affirmed. 1 . At least two district courts, in addition to the one below and the one in Pickens, have also weighed in on the issue. Compare Schuback v. Law Offices of Phillip S. Van Embden, P.C., No. 1:12-CV-320, 2013 WL 432641, at *2-6 (M.D.Pa. Feb. 1, 2013) (<HOLDING>), with Adkins v. Weltman, Weinberg & Reis Co.,
holding commercial franchises are not covered by new jersey consumer fraud act because they are businesses and not consumer goods holding that a garnishment proceeding is an action against the consumer recognizing that pennsylvania had no interest in denying its residents the greater damages available under new jersey consumer fraud statutes for claims against a new jersey seller holding that common pleas erred in setting aside the writ of execution on the basis that the union erroneously filed a writ of execution instead of filing a writ of mandamus holding that a writ of execution under new jersey law is not an action against the consumer