ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY MOTION TO AMEND JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT BE DENIED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION

(ECF No. 23)

ERICA P. GROSJEAN, Magistrate Judge.

This judgment enforcement proceeding was initiated by Plaintiff, Jersey Architectural Door & Supply, Inc., on July 29, 2013, with the registering of a foreign judgment obtained by Plaintiff against Defendants, Ronald Patterson and Aeroplate Corp., in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Philadelphia. (ECF No. 1.) On October 31, 2018, Plaintiff filed a motion to amend that foreign judgment to add additional judgment debtors not named in the foreign judgment, which Plaintiff claims are alter-egos of Defendants (ECF No. 23).

It appears that the Court does not have jurisdiction to amend the judgment as requested by Plaintiff. See Peacock v. Thomas, 516 U.S. 349, 356-59 (1996) (supplementary proceedings "for the exercise of a federal court's inherent power to enforce its judgments" does "not extend beyond attempts to execute, or to guarantee eventual executability of, a federal judgment," and does not authorize "the exercise of ancillary jurisdiction in a subsequent lawsuit to impose an obligation to pay an existing federal judgment on a person not already liable for that judgment"); H.C. Cook Co. v. Beecher, 217 U.S. 497 (1910) (rejecting attempt to make defendants answerable for a judgment already obtained that did not name, and was not against, those defendants). Accordingly, the Court raises the issue of jurisdiction sua sponte and will require Plaintiff to show cause why its motion should not be denied for lack of jurisdiction.

IT IS ORDERED that, no later than November 16, 2018, Plaintiff shall show cause why its Motion to Amend Judgment and for Order that Judgment Lien Attach to Real Property (ECF No. 23) should not be denied for lack of jurisdiction.

IT IS SO ORDERED.