American Rag Cie v. Haralambus CA2/8

Filed 7/13/21 American Rag Cie v. Haralambus CA2/8 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION EIGHT

AMERICAN RAG CIE, LLC, B304350

(Los Angeles County Plaintiff and Respondent. Super. Ct. No. BC426342) v.

HARRY HARALAMBUS,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of the County of Los Angeles, Edward B. Moreton, Jr., Judge. Affirmed.

Harry Haralambus, in pro. per., for Defendant and Appellant.

Russ, August & Kabat and Nathan D. Meyer for Plaintiff and Respondent.

********

There have been numerous lawsuits, enforcement actions, and appeals between Harry Haralambus, Laura LaRocca, and other individuals and their affiliated entities, arising from their business dealings.1 In this case, Ms. LaRocca assigned a judgment against Mr. Haralambus to respondent American Rag Cie, LLC. This appeal is from an order denying Mr. Haralambus’s request for a protective order to prevent the taking of a judgment debtor’s examination requested by American Rag in its efforts to enforce that assigned judgment. Mr. Haralambus argues the trial court abused its discretion, arguing that American Rag owed him money from a judgment in another case, and that pending litigation in yet another case may have an impact on sums owed between the parties. We find Mr. Haralambus’s inadequate briefing has waived his right to appellate review, and there is no merit to his arguments, so we affirm. BACKGROUND We will not delve too deeply into the disputes between these parties, except as is relevant to the narrow issues presented by this appeal. In this case, Ms. LaRocca obtained a judgment of $1,214,757.95 against Mr. Haralambus, plus costs and interest, which has been affirmed on appeal. (LaRocca v. LMR Partners, Inc., supra, B271298.)