Filed 5/24/17 Harrell v. Alameda County Sheriff’s Dept. CA1/3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION THREE


HULEN T. HARRELL,
Plaintiff and Appellant,
v.
ALAMEDA COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT et al.,
Defendants and Respondents.

A151139

(Alameda County
Super. Ct. No. RG13665188)


Plaintiff Hulen T. Harrell, appearing in propria persona, purports to appeal an order entered on February 10, 2017, denying his motion to strike defendants’ answer. Defendants have moved to dismiss the appeal on the grounds that the appeal is untimely and that the order is not appealable. We need not determine whether the appeal is timely, as the order is clearly not appealable.
“A reviewing court has jurisdiction over a direct appeal only when there is (1) an appealable order or (2) an appealable judgment. [Citation.] . . . [¶] A trial court’s order is appealable when it is made so by statute.” (Griset v. Fair Political Practices Com. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 688, 696.)
Plaintiff’s notice of appeal states that the order is appealable as a final judgment under Code of Civil Procedure section 904.1, subdivisions (a)(1). “Judgments that leave nothing to be decided between one or more parties and their adversaries, or that can be amended to encompass all controverted issues, have the finality required by section 904.1, subdivision (a). A judgment that disposes of fewer than all of the causes of action framed by the pleadings, however, is necessarily ‘interlocutory’ [citation], and not yet final, as to any parties between whom another cause of action remains pending.” (Morehart v. County of Santa Barbara (1994) 7 Cal.4th 725, 741.) Insofar as four causes of action remain outstanding and unresolved between the parties, no final judgment has been entered. Moreover, it has long been decided that “an order striking an answer is not appealable, since appeal lies from the subsequent judgment against the party whose answer was stricken.” (Administrative Management Services, Inc. v. Fidelity & Deposit Co. (1982) 129 Cal.App.3d 484, 489; Reese v. Administrative Committee of Profit Sharing Trust (1963) 218 Cal.App.2d 646, 649 [no appeal lies from order granting motion to strike portions of defendant’s answer]; W.A. Rose Co. v. Municipal Court (1959) 176 Cal.App.2d 67, 74 [“An order granting or denying a motion to strike a pleading is not appealable.”].)
Accordingly, the appeal must be dismissed.
Disposition
The appeal is dismissed.


Pollak, Acting P.J.

We concur:

Siggins, J.
Jenkins, J.