Davis

MEMORANDUM ***

Richard Davis appeals from the district court’s order denying attorneys’ fees, costs, and prejudgment interest in his suit against State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. We affirm.

State Farm raises two jurisdictional issues that we consider at the outset. We do not agree that Davis’s appeal from the denial of attorneys’ fees is untimely for any of the reasons asserted. An order *104 denying fees and costs is collateral to, and separately appealable from, the judgment. See, e.g., Culinary and Serv. Employees Union, AFL-CIO Local 555 v. Haw. Employee Ben. Admin., Inc., 688 F.2d 1228, 1232 (9th Cir.1982). Davis’s appeal, filed within 30 days of the order’s entry, was therefore timely. See Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(1). Nor do we agree that Davis’s motion for prejudgment interest was untimely in the district court; excluding intermediate Saturdays and Sundays from the calculus, Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(a), it was filed within 10 days as Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e) requires.

Davis argues that State Farm waived its right to contest any award of fees, costs, and interest, noting, among other things, that he waived the right to appeal confirmation of the appraisal award and that State Farm did not…