1

Filed 11/9/23 P. v. Montgomery-Sansome CA1/5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

MONTGOMERY-SANSOME, LP, et 

al.,

Defendants and Appellants.

 A164554

 (San Mateo County Super. Ct. No. 

17CIV04659)

MEMORANDUM OPINION1

In this consumer protection action brought by the People, 

the trial court found, after a bench trial, that defendants 

Montgomery-Sansome, LP and its general partner and owner 

Leonard Nordeman committed, in their general contracting work, 

45 violations of the False Advertising Law (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 

17500 et seq.)2 and the Unfair Competition Law (§ 17200). 

Montgomery-Sansome and Nordeman (collectively, appellants) 

appeal from the judgment, in which the trial court ordered 

appellants to pay civil penalties and enjoined further violations. 

1 We resolve this case by a memorandum opinion pursuant 

to Standard 8.1 of the California Standards of Judicial 

Administration, and the First Appellate District Local Rules, rule 

19.

2 Undesignated statutory references are to the Business 

and Professions Code.
2

So far as we can tell from their deficient opening brief on 

appeal, appellants contend that substantial evidence does not 

support the trial court’s findings, that the trial court 

misconstrued the Public Insurance Adjusters Act (Ins. Code, 

§ 15000 et seq.; the Act), and that the trial court abused its 

discretion by granting injunctive relief. We affirm because 

appellants wholly fail to meet their burden to demonstrate error 

and have forfeited all their arguments. 

As an appellate court, we must presume the trial court’s 

judgment is correct. The appellant bears the burden of 

affirmatively demonstrating error. (Howard v. Thrifty Drug & 

Discount Stores (1995) 10 Cal.4th 424, 443.) To do so, the 

appellant must provide an adequate record (Hotels Nevada, LLC 

v. L.A. Pacific Center, Inc. (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 336, 348) along 

with reasoned and intelligible legal argument supported by 

references to the record and pertinent authority. (Hernandez v. 

First Student, Inc. (2019) 37 Cal.App.5th 270, 277 (Hernandez); 

Nwosu v. Uba (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 1229, 1246 (Nwosu); Cal. 

Rules of Court, rules 8.204(a)(1)(B)-(C), (a)(2)(C).) 

Here, appellants fail to address the merits of their appeal 

in a meaningful way. First, appellants suggest that substantial 

evidence does not support certain of the trial court’s findings—

that appellants (who are not licensed as public insurance 

adjusters) were compensated for aiding insureds in negotiating 

the settlement of property damage claims (see Ins. Code, 

§§ 15006, 15007),3 that appellants made false or misleading 

3 Insurance Code section 15006, subdivision (a), prohibits 

any person from acting as a public insurance adjuster without a 

license. Insurance Code section 15007, in pertinent part, 

provides: “A public insurance adjuster within the meaning of this 

chapter is a person who, for compensation, acts on behalf of or 

aids in any manner, an insured in negotiating for or effecting the 

settlement of a claim or claims for loss or damage under any 
3

statements, and that their consulting contracts constitute “home 

improvement contracts” subject to the requirements of the Home 

Improvement Contract Law (Bus. & Prof. Code, §§ 7151, 7151.2, 

7159). However, appellants have forfeited their substantial 

evidence arguments by failing to provide an adequate summary 

of the facts, supported by citations to the record. 

California Rules of Court, rule 8.204(a)(1)(C) requires that 

all appellate briefs must “[s]upport any reference to a matter in 

the record by a citation to the volume and page number of the 

record where the matter appears.” It also provides that an 

appellant’s opening brief must “[p]rovide a summary of the 

significant facts limited to matters in the record.” (Id., rule 

8.204(a)(2)(C).) The factual summary must present all the 

material facts, not just the evidence supporting the appellant’s 

position. (Nwosu, supra, 122 Cal.App.4th at p. 1246.) Failure to 

present a fair statement of the facts, accompanied by 

corresponding specific citations to the record, results in forfeiture 

of any substantial evidence argument. (Ibid.) It is not our role to 

search the record for evidence that supports appellants’ 

arguments. (Ibid.) 

At trial, eight witnesses testified and 44 exhibits—several 

of which are more than one hundred pages long—were admitted. 

But appellants only provide proper record citations on two 

occasions within the entirety of their opening briefs’ “[s]tatement 

of [t]he [c]ase” and substantial evidence sections. On both 

occasions, their citation is solely to Nordeman’s own testimony. 

In far more numerous instances, appellants make purportedly 

factual statements, but then fail to provide any citation to the 

record. They also fail to summarize (much less cite the record to 

support) the People’s evidence. This is especially egregious 

considering that they challenge trial court findings that underlie 

policy of insurance covering real or personal property.” (Italics 

added.) 
4

45 different violations of the False Advertising Law and Unfair 

Competition Law. Accordingly, appellants’ substantial evidence 

arguments are forfeited. (Nwosu, supra, 122 Cal.App.4th at p. 

1246.)

Next, appellants (obliquely) argue that the trial court 

misinterpreted the Act. They assert, “[t]he public policy of 

licensing qualified public insurance adjusters is to prevent 

dishonesty, sharp dealing, and incompetence to the consumer” 

and “to [p]rotect the [p]ublic from [u]nethical or [f]raudulent 

[p]ublic [a]djusters [n]ot to [p]unish [c]ontractors [w]ho [h]elp 

[i]nsureds [w]ithout [c]ompensation.” They also suggest that the 

trial court misconstrued the meaning of “negotiating,” as used in 

Insurance Code section 15007. 

Although they cite that statute, an opinion construing it 

(Building Permit Consultants, Inc. v. Mazur (2004) 122 

Cal.App.4th 1400), and Insurance Code section 2695.9 (in their 

supplemental brief)4—they fail to explain how this authority 

conflicts with the trial court’s judgment. Because appellants fail 

both to support this argument with citations to the record and to 

apply cited legal principles to the facts, they have also forfeited 

this argument. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.204(a)(1)(C);

Hernandez, supra, 37 Cal.App.5th at p. 277 [“[w]e may and do 

‘disregard conclusory arguments that are not supported by 

pertinent legal authority or fail to disclose the reasoning by 

which the appellant reached the conclusions he wants us to 

adopt’ ”]; In re S.C. (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 396, 408 [“[t]o 

demonstrate error, appellant must present meaningful legal 

analysis supported by citations to authority and citations to facts 

in the record that support the claim of error”].) 

4 There is no section 2695.9 of the Insurance Code. It 

appears that appellants’ counsel meant to cite California Code of 

Regulations, title 10, section 2695.9. 
5

Finally, appellants argue that the trial court abused its 

discretion in granting injunctive relief. Yet, again, appellants do 

not specify in any comprehensible manner how the trial court 

abused its discretion. They merely refer to certain hypotheticals 

and state (in conclusory fashion) that such hypothetical behavior 

should not be considered illegal. In doing so, they fail to cite any 

evidence in the record or legal authority that supports the 

relevance of their hypotheticals.5 Accordingly, appellants 

forfeited this point by failing to articulate a reasoned argument, 

supported by legal authority and citations to the record. (See 

Cal. Rules of Court, rules 8.204(a)(1)(B)-(C); Hernandez, supra,

37 Cal.App.5th at p. 277; In re S.C., supra, 138 Cal.App.4th at p. 

408.) 

It is not our role to construct arguments on appellants’ 

behalf. (In re Marriage of Falcone & Fyke (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 

814, 830.) 

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed. The People are entitled to their 

costs on appeal. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.278(a)(2).) 

BURNS, J. 

WE CONCUR:

JACKSON, P.J.

SIMONS, J.

People v. Montgomery-Sansome, LP, et al. (A164554)

5 Appellants cite one page in the reporter’s transcript 

where an expert witness gave examples of contractor behavior 

that would not constitute public insurance adjusting. This 

citation alone does not demonstrate an abuse of discretion.