(Dabney v. Dabney (2002) 104 Cal.App.4th 379, 384, 127 Cal.Rptr.2d 917 [“We need not consider an argument for which no authority is furnished”]; Badie v. Bank of America (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 779, 784–785, 79 Cal.Rptr.2d 273 [failure to support contention with reasoned argument and citations to authority results in waiver].) We further observe that the Court of Appeal for the First District, Division 1, rejected a similar challenge to section 1582 in Goodman v. Cory (1983) 142 Cal.App.3d 737, 742, 191 Cal.Rptr. 272 (Goodman ). In Goodman, a licensed private investigator challenged section 1582 on constitutional grounds, arguing, inter alia, that the statute infringed upon his right to pursue a lawful business.
(3) The police power is the authority to enact laws to promote the public health, safety, morals and general welfare. ( Goodman v. Cory (1983) 142 Cal.App.3d 737, 741 [ 191 Cal.Rptr. 272].) Legislation is within the police power if it is reasonably related to a proper legislative goal.
(1) Legislatures are presumed to have acted constitutionally. ( Goodman v. Cory (1983) 142 Cal.App.3d 737, 744 [ 191 Cal.Rptr. 272].) Statutes must be upheld unless their unconstitutionality clearly, positively, and unmistakably appears.
"Courts may not substitute their social and economic beliefs for the judgment of the Legislature elected by the people to enact appropriate regulatory legislation." ( Goodman v. Cory (1983) 142 Cal.App.3d 737, 741 [ 191 Cal.Rptr. 272].) DISPOSITION
"The guarantee of equal protection of the laws does not preclude the state from drawing distinctions among different groups of individuals; it requires only that persons similarly situated receive like treatment." (Goodman v. Cory (1983) 142 Cal.App.3d 737, 743.) "Where . . . a disputed statutory disparity implicates no suspect class or fundamental right, 'equal protection of the law is denied only where there is no "rational relationship between the disparity of treatment and some legitimate governmental purpose."'
Direlco, Inc. v. Bullock, 711 S.W.2d 360, 363 (Tex.App.-Austin 1986, writ ref'd n.r.e.). Although we have found no Texas cases regarding this issue, we note that similar statutes with fee limitations have been upheld in other states. See, e.g., Goodman v. Cory, 191 Cal.Rptr. 272 (App. 1983). We therefore conclude that a private investigator or other person who assists a claimant in recovering assets held by the department pursuant to Property Code section 74.507 may not contract for or receive from the claimant an amount that exceeds ten percent of the value of the property recovered.