Case Number: BC408322 Hearing Date: March 07, 2018 Dept: 32

Lee Ehrlichman,

Plaintiff,

v.

Signalife, Inc., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: BC408322

Hearing Date: March 7, 2018

[TENTATIVE] order RE:

Motion to strike the “amendment to complaint” as to james n. fielder

Fielder’s request for judicial notice is GRANTED.

“The court may, upon a motion made pursuant to Section 435, or at any time in its discretion, and upon terms it deems proper: (a) Strike out any irrelevant, false, or improper matter inserted in any pleading. (b) Strike out all or any part of any pleading not drawn or filed in conformity with the laws of this state, a court rule, or an order of the court.” (CCP § 436.)

On June 30, 2017, Plaintiff substituted James N. Fielder as Doe Defendant #4. Fielder now moves to strike the amendment. However, as explained in the opposition, the Doe Amendment was made for the purpose of collecting judgment. “A trial court has the authority to amend a judgment in order to add additional judgment debtors. Code of Civil Procedure section 187 has often served as the basis for such an amendment of a judgment, pursuant to the alter ego doctrine.” (Dow Jones Co. v. Avenel (1984) 151 Cal. App. 3d 144, 148.) There is no statute of limitations for a motion to amend a judgment to add a judgment debtor. (Highland Springs Conference and Training Center v. City of Banning (2016) 244 Cal. App. 4th 267, 287.) Plaintiff’s motion to amend judgment is currently set for April 27, 2018. Although Judge Strobel previously denied Plaintiff’s motion to amend judgment, this denial was made without prejudice. (May 23, 2014 Ruling.) As such, the motion is premature.

The motion is DENIED.