Court Opinion

ID: 9896294
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-09 21:05:24.324149+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:14:38.256065
License: Public Domain

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       NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for pur-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

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

                         FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

                                    DIVISION FIVE

 THE PEOPLE,
            Plaintiff and Respondent,                             A164554
 v.
 MONTGOMERY-SANSOME, LP, et                                       (San Mateo County Super. Ct. No.
 al.,                                                             17CIV04659)
            Defendants and Appellants.

                     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.

       We resolve this case by a memorandum opinion pursuant
        1

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.
                                                1
      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
                                 2
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.)
                                  3
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”].)

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

appears that appellants’ counsel meant to cite California Code of
Regulations, title 10, section 2695.9.
                                 4
       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)

       5Appellants 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.
                                        5