17-CIV-04659 THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA VS. MONTGOMERY- SANSOME, LP, ET AL.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA MONTGOMERY-SANSOME, LP
STEPHEN M. WAGSTAFFE EDWIN BRADLEY

LEONARD NORDEMAN’S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT TO COMEL PLAINTIFF’S TO NAME AND SERVE AND JOIN ALL INDISPENSABLE PARTIES TO THE UNDERLYING COMPALINT DATED AND FILED OCTOBER 11, 2017 TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendant Leonard Nordeman’s motion to compel joinder is DENIED.

Defendant’s notice of motion is not in compliance with CRC 3.1110, as it improperly sets forth 15 pages of facts and legal argument. Further, Defendant’s memorandum of points and authorities is not in compliance with the 15-page limit set forth in CRC 3.1113. Although the memorandum begins on page 16 and ends on page 31, it incorporates 15 pages of additional facts and legal argument set forth in the notice of motion. Defendant has not sought leave to exceed the applicable page limit in accordance with CRC 3.1113(e).

Further, Defendant has failed to support his motion with cogent argument or pertinent legal authority. For example, Defendant claims “The plain language of the statutes cited by Plaintiff demonstrate facially that it takes more than one person engaging in negotiations on behalf of the public home owner to become liable for violations of the Public Adjuster Act. See Insurance Code Sections 15027, et seq.” [Notice of Motion, p.4] Defendant, however, does not (1) identify the specific statute he refers to, (2) offer any analysis of that statute based on its plain language, or (3) provide any authority in support of his interpretation. “A point which is merely suggested by a party’s counsel, with no supporting argument or authority, is deemed to be without foundation and requires no discussion.” Do It Urself Moving & Storage, Inc. v. Brown, Leifer, Slatkin & Berns (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 27, 35, superseded by statute on other grounds in Union Bank v. Sup.Ct. (1995) 31 Cal.App.4th 573, 583.

Defendant’s claim that the insurance companies are indispensable parties to this enforcement action is ultimately unpersuasive. Defendant has not demonstrated that failure to join the insurance companies will be prejudicial to him.

If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the Court. Thereafter, counsel for Defendant shall prepare a written order consistent with the Court’s ruling for the Court’s signature, pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1312, and provide written notice of the ruling to all parties who have appeared in the action, as required by law and the California Rules of Court.