Court Opinion

ID: 9928674
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-31 20:04:02.540059+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:52:57.453855
License: Public Domain

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   NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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.

1    Subsequent rule references are to the California Rules of
Court.

2      Subsequent statutory references are to the Code of Civil
Procedure.
       Plaintiff appealed the denial of his peremptory challenge
petition, which the court of appeal dismissed as an appeal from a
nonappealable order. (Harsini v. Curko (Feb. 3, 2023, B321693)
[nonpub. order].)

                                 2
      On August 22, 2022, plaintiff moved for summary
judgment. On September 22, 2022, the trial court denied the
motion without prejudice.
      On September 22, 2022, plaintiff re-filed the summary
judgment motion.
      On January 25, 2023, defendant moved for judgment on the
pleadings. Plaintiff filed an opposition to the motion and
defendant filed a reply.
      On March 2, 2023, the trial court granted defendant’s
motion for judgment on the pleadings without leave to amend.3
On March 21, 2023, the court denied plaintiff’s motion to vacate
the order denying his summary judgment motion. That same
day, the court entered judgment in favor of defendant. Plaintiff
timely appealed.4

3     The motion for judgment on the pleadings, plaintiff’s
opposition, defendant’s reply to the opposition, and the order
granting the motion are not in the appellate record.

4     Plaintiff identified multiple inapplicable grounds of
appealability in his notice of appeal, specifically: section 904.1,
subdivisions (a)(3) to (a)(13); section 170.6; and a judgment of
dismissal under section 581d. Nonetheless, we liberally construe
the notice (rule 8.100(a)(2)) as an appeal from a judgment after
an order granting a motion for judgment on the pleadings, which
is appealable. (Ellerbee v. County of Los Angeles (2010) 187
Cal.App.4th 1206, 1212–1213.)

                                 3
                        III.   DISCUSSION

       On appeal, plaintiff challenges the trial court’s order
granting defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings. We
reject plaintiff’s challenge for two reasons.
       First, plaintiff has failed to support his appeal with cogent
argument, citations to authority, or reference to the record. As a
self-represented litigant, plaintiff “is entitled to the same but no
greater consideration than other litigants. [Citations.]” (County
of Sacramento v. Singh (2021) 65 Cal.App.5th 858, 861.) And, an
appellant’s position on appeal must be supported by cognizable
legal argument and citations to authority. (Cahill v. San Diego
Gas & Electric Co. (2011) 194 Cal.App.4th 939, 956.) “‘“When an
appellant fails to raise a point, or asserts it but fails to support it
with reasoned argument and citations to authority, we treat the
point as waived.”’ [Citation.] ‘We are not bound to develop
appellants’ arguments for them. [Citation.] The absence of
cogent legal argument or citation to authority allows this court to
treat the contention as waived.’” (Ibid.)
       Second, plaintiff has provided an inadequate record on
appeal. The record does not include the motion for judgment on
the pleadings, plaintiff’s opposition, defendant’s reply, or the
order granting the motion. “[I]t is a fundamental principle of
appellate procedure that a trial court judgment is ordinarily
presumed to be correct and the burden is on an appellant to
demonstrate, on the basis of the record presented to the appellate
court, that the trial court committed an error that justifies
reversal of the judgment. [Citations.] ‘This is not only a general
principle of appellate practice but an ingredient of the
constitutional doctrine of reversible error.’ [Citations.] ‘In the

                                   4
absence of a contrary showing in the record, all presumptions in
favor of the trial court’s action will be made by the appellate
court. “[I]f any matters could have been presented to the court
below which would have authorized the order complained of, it
will be presumed that such matters were presented.”’ [Citation.]
‘“A necessary corollary to this rule is that if the record is
inadequate for meaningful review, the appellant defaults and the
decision of the trial court should be affirmed.”’ [Citation.]
‘Consequently, [the appellant] has the burden of providing an
adequate record. [Citation.] Failure to provide an adequate
record on an issue requires that the issue be resolved against [the
appellant].’ [Citation.]” (Jameson v. Desta (2018) 5 Cal.5th 594,
608–609.)

                                 5
                      IV.   DISPOSITION

       The judgment is affirmed. Defendant Marcello Curko is
entitled to costs on appeal.

     NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

                                        KIM, J.

We concur:

             RUBIN, P. J.

             BAKER, J.

                               6