Harsini v. Curko CA2/5

Filed 1/31/24 Harsini v. Curko CA2/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIVE

MIKE HARSINI, B328416

Plaintiff and Appellant, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. v. 22TRCV00213)

MARCELLO CURKO,

Defendant and Respondent.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Deirdre Hill, Judge. Affirmed. Mike Harsini, self-represented litigant, for Plaintiff and Appellant. Logan Mathevosian & Hur and Elise H. Hur, for Defendant and Respondent.

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff Mike Harsini appeals from a judgment following an order granting defendant Marcello Curko’s motion for judgment on the pleadings. Plaintiff’s opening and reply briefs violate rule 8.204 of the California Rules of Court.1 Moreover, he has failed to provide an adequate record on appeal. Accordingly, we affirm.

II. BACKGROUND

On March 22, 2022, plaintiff filed a complaint against defendant for defamation and intentional infliction of mental distress. On July 5, 2022, plaintiff filed a peremptory challenge against the trial judge pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 170.6, which the trial court denied as untimely.2 On July 18, 2022, plaintiff filed a special motion to strike pursuant to section 425.16. On August 19, 2022, the trial court denied the motion.