People v. Montgomery-Sansome CA1/5

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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for pur- poses of rule 8.1115.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).)