You are on page 1of 21

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Melody Gillespie, c/o P.O. Box 8323 Porterville, California, 93258.

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF TULARE

Courtney Gillespie, Melody Gillespie, Plaintiffs, -VSRobert J. Fletcher, Et Al,

Case #: 249049

NOTICE OF & MOTION FOR ORDER CONSOLIDATING CASES #: 249049 & #: 10-238961; OF PLAINTIFFS Melody & Courtney Gillespie; SUPPORTING DECLARATIONS; REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS & AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR ORDER CONSOLIDATING CASES HEARING DATE: DEPT.: TIME:

Defendants. ___________________________

TO: THE CLERK OF THE ABOVE NAMED COURT, NAMED DEFENDANTS & THEIR COUNSEL OF RECORD IN THE ABOVE ENTITLED ACTION, PLEASE TAKE NOTICE OF THE FOLLOWING: 1. On the day of / / 2012 in Dept. ___, at the hour of 8:30 a.m., Or as soon thereafter as Plaintiffs can be heard Plaintiffs herein will Move the above named Court & Dept. ___ Judge for an Order Consolidating Cases #: 249049 & 10-238961, Pursuant to the express Provisions of California CCP Section 1048 (a) based upon the following Grounds: (1) Both Cases involve a Common question of Law & Fact now pending before the same

Notice of & Motion to Consolidate of Plaintiffs Melody & Courtney Gillespie-1

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Court in two Separate Cases which establishes that they are “Related Cases” under California Rules of Court Rule 3.300; (2) Consolidating the two Cases under the same Case number, #: 249049, will avoid unnecessary Costs & Delay; (3) Consolidating the two Cases under the same Case number, #: 249049, will enhance the efficiency of the Court in dispensing Justice between the Parties in the most efficient & timely manner possible & failure to consolidate will have the Opposite Effect in both Cases, as they are Related Cases as that term is defined by California Law under California Rules of Court Rule 3.300. (4) Consolidating the two Cases serves the Policy & Doctrine of Judicial Economy, & serves the efficient Administration of Justice. (5) No Prejudice can result to any Party by Consolidating the said Cases, however all Parties will benefit from such Consolidation; 2. This Motion is based on this Notice; the pleadings in both Cases, the Supporting Declarations & accompanying Request for Judicial Notice, Memorandum of Points & Authorities in Support of the Motion, Contents of the Courts files in both Cases. 3. Wherefore Plaintiffs pray this Court: (1) Takes Judicial Notice as Requested herein & as Required by Law, &; (2) Grants this Motion, &; (3) Issues an Order Consolidating both Cases under this Case number #: 249049, for all purposes, &; (4) Grants whatever other relief the Curt deems Right & Proper under all facts, Law, & Equities of the Case. Executed by my hand on this day, the-Day-of-the-Ninth-Month-Two-thousand-twelve, _______________________________ Melody Gillespie _______________________________ Courtney Gillespie

Notice of & Motion to Consolidate of Plaintiffs Melody & Courtney Gillespie-2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Melody Gillespie, c/o P.O. Box 8323 Porterville, California, 93258.

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF TULARE Courtney Gillespie, Melody Gillespie, Plaintiffs, -VSRobert J. Fletcher, Et Al, DECLARATION OF Melody & Courtney Gillespie; IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR ORDER CONSOLIDATING CASES #: 249049 & 10-238961 Case #: 249049

Defendants. HEARING DATE: ____________________________ DEPT.: TIME:

1. Melody & Courtney Gillespie say & Declare as follows: 2. We are called the “Plaintiffs” in the above Entitled Action. 3. We were witness to & have direct personal Knowledge of the following matters and we are competent to testify to the truth of the same if we are called upon to do so, and we will so testify if we are called upon. 4. We previously filed an Action against Nicklas Arthur Hoffman in Case #: 10-238961 for a permanent Injunction against him for his criminal & Tortious conduct over the

Notice of & Motion to Consolidate of Plaintiffs Melody & Courtney Gillespie-3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Course of several years against us at the property located at 1831 N. Lime Street, Porterville California. Thereafter Hoffman & other 3rd Parties filed a Cross Complaint against us for Ejectment, Quiet Title & for Damages. Hoffman & all These third parties are named herein this Case as Defendants, & said Case #: 10-238961 is appropriate for Consolidation with this Action pursuant to the express Provisions of California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1048(a). 5. Hoffman,Et Al, have Failed & Refused to name all Parties who they know have or may claim Rights & interests in the said real Property at 1831 N. Lime Street, including New Paradigm Holding Company, Shaun Ray Enterprises, which intentional omission in their Quiet Title Complaint is in Violation of the Statutory Requirements for a Quiet Title Action on real Property in California. Nicklas Hoffman,Et Al also Failed & Refused to Record a Notice of Pendency of Action immediately upon the filing of their purported Quiet Title Cross Action in # 10-238961,which is Expressly Required by Statute. 6. The Cause for the failure to Record the Notice of Pendency of Action by Nicklas Hoffman & his Bar Attorney is that tricky Nick is attempting to sell the whole ten (10) Acres of land at 1831 N. Lime Street on line himself , out from under Plaintiffs herein, while the Actions over Title Are Pending, so he can run away with the money & hide, if anyone in the Public is foolish & ignorant enough to buy it from him while these Actions are Pending over Title to said Property; & Plaintiffs herein contend this is a Fraud on the Public, a Fraud on this Court, & a Fraud on Plaintiffs herein, as Nicklas Hoffman is currently purporting himself, to sell the same property on line on the internet, where he has it listed for sale on more then one location while at the same time he is telling this Court that the owner is another party,“H.M. WYSOCKI IRREVOCABLE TRUST”. 7. See attached Exhibits # 1, showing web pages WHERE Hoffman is listing the property for sale by him personally, NOT AS A TRUSTEE FOR WYSOCKI TRUST OR ANY OTHER ENTITY, WHICH IS A CLEAR FRAUD UPON THE PUBLIC. See attached Exhibit 2, “DEED OF TRUST” TULARE COUNTY RECORDERS OFFICE DOCUMENT #: 2006-0002762, RECORDED ON JANUARY 11, 2006,

Notice of & Motion to Consolidate of Plaintiffs Melody & Courtney Gillespie-4

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

showing “H.M. WYSOCKI IRREVOCABLE TRUST”, THROUGH TRUSTEE NICKOL GERITSMA EXPRESSLY STATED THAT SAID TRUST “Irrevocably Grants, Transfers and Assigns to Trustee in Trust, with power of sale, that real property in Tulare county, California, Described as: LOT 10 OF HERMOSA ORANGE COLONY, COUNTY OF TULARE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA ACCORDING TO THE MAP THEREOF RECORDED IN BOOK 2, PAGE 131 OF MAPS, TULARE COUNTY RECORDS. APN 255-230004”, BY WHICH CROSS COMPLAINANT H.M. WYSOCKI IRREVOCABLE TRUST TRANSFERED ALL RIGHT , TITLE & INTEREST IN the Real Property at 1831 N. Lime Street, Porterville California, to an Entity named “NEW PARADIGM HOLDING CO.”, WHICH TRANSFER WAS RECORDED WITH TULARE COUNTY RECORDERS OFFICE IN 2006, & which Entity was not named as either a Plaintiff or a Defendant by Nicklas Hoffman Et Al, in their bogus Cross Complaint in Case #: 10-238961. 8. The foregoing facts Establish as a matter of Law the Impossibility of obtaining any Quiet TITLE BY H.M. WYSOCKI TRUST, in their favor in Case #: 10-238961, BECAUSE THEY HAVE EXPRESSLY TRANSFERED ALL RIGHTS & INTERESTS IN SAID PROPERTY TO ANOTHER ENTITY, WHO IS NOT A NAMED PARTY TO THE CROSS ACTION, AS EITHER A PLAINTIFF OR A DEFENDANT, Which Renders their Cross Complaint for Quiet Title & Ejectment Frivolous & without any Merit, & is a clear waste of Judicial Time & Resources for there to be any Trial whatsoever, & that Case should be immediately Consolidated with this one so it can be Disposed of in the Course of these Proceedings in a Motion for Summary Judgment / Adjudication, or such other Dispositive Motion which may be Appropriate under the Facts; which are based upon the same Facts & Transaction as the Causes in the other Related Case #: 10-238961; 9. Cases #: 249049 & 10-238961 are “Related Cases” under California Rules of Court, Rule 3.300,& Qualify for Consolidation Pursuant to the Express Provisions of California CCP Section 1048 (a);

Notice of & Motion to Consolidate of Plaintiffs Melody & Courtney Gillespie-5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

(1) Both Cases involve a Common question of Law & Fact now pending before the same Court; (2) Consolidating the two Cases under the same Case number, #: 249049, will avoid unnecessary Costs & Delay; (3) Consolidating the two Cases under the same Case number, #: 249049, will enhance the efficiency of the Court in dispensing Justice between the Parties in the most efficient & timely manner possible & failure to consolidate will have the Opposite Effect in both Cases, as they are Related Cases as that term is defined by California Law under California Rules of Court Rule 3.300. (4) Consolidating the two Cases serves the Policy & Doctrine of Judicial Economy, & serves the efficient Administration of Justice. (5) No Prejudice can result to any Party by Consolidating the said Cases, however all Parties will benefit from such Consolidation; 2. Based upon all the foregoing Plaintiffs herein Request that this Court Takes Judicial Notice as Requested herein & as Required by Law, &; Grants this Motion, &; Issues an Order Consolidating both Cases under this Case number #: 249049, for all purposes, &; Grants whatever other relief the Court Deems Right & Proper under all facts, Law, & Equities of the Case.

DECLARATION
We the undersigned hereby Declare under penalty of perjury under the Laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed by my hand on this day, the-day-of-the-tenth-month-Two-thousand-twelve, _______________________________ Melody Gillespie _______________________________ Courtney Gillespie

Notice of & Motion to Consolidate of Plaintiffs Melody & Courtney Gillespie-6

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

EXHIBIT PAGE INDEX OF EXHIBITS _____________________________ # 1: WEB PAGES WHERE Nicklas Hoffman is listing the property at 1831 N. Lime
Street for sale by him personally NOT AS A TRUSTEE FOR H.M. WYSOCKI TRUST OR ANY OTHER ENTITY, WHICH IS A CLEAR FRAUD

UPON THE PUBLIC. #2: “DEED OF TRUST”, TULARE COUNTY RECORDERS OFFICE DOCUMENT #:
2006-0002762, RECORDED ON JANUARY 11, 2006, showing “H.M. WYSOCKI IRREVOCABLE TRUST”, THROUGH TRUSTEE NICKOL GERITSMA EXPRESSLY STATED THAT SAID TRUST “Irrevocably Grants, Transfers and Assigns to Trustee in Trust, with power of sale, that real property in Tulare County, California, Described as: LOT 10 OF HERMOSA ORANGE COLONY, COUNTY OF TULARE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA ACCORDING TO THE MAP THEREOF RECORDED IN BOOK 2, PAGE 131 OF MAPS, TULARE COUNTY RECORDS. APN 255-230004”, BY WHICH CROSS COMPLAINANT H.M. WYSOCKI IRREVOCABLE TRUST TRANSFERED ALL RIGHT, TITLE & INTEREST IN the Real Property at 1831 N. Lime Street, Porterville California, to an Entity named “NEW PARADIGM HOLDING CO.”, & which Entity was not named as either a Plaintiff or a Defendant by Nicklas Hoffman Et Al, in their bogus Cross Complaint in Case #:10-238961.

Notice of & Motion to Consolidate of Plaintiffs Melody & Courtney Gillespie- 7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Melody Gillespie, c/o P.O. Box 8323 Porterville, California, 93258.

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF TULARE

Courtney Gillespie, Melody Gillespie, Plaintiffs, -VSRobert J. Fletcher, Et Al,

Case #: 249049

REQUEST FOR MANDATORY JUDICIAL NOTICE OF Melody & Courtney Gillespie; IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR ORDER CONSOLIDATING CASES #: 249049 & 10-238961

Defendants. HEARING DATE: ____________________________ DEPT.: TIME:

1. Melody & Courtney Gillespie , called Plaintiffs in the above Entitled Action hereby Request the above named Court to take Mandatory Judicial Notice Pursuant to the Express Provisions of California Evidence Code Section 450-459 of the following matters in the Courts own Records; (1) The Existence of a Related Case in the same Court, Case #: 10-238961, wherein Plaintiffs herein are suing Nicklas Hoffman for Injunctive Relief, & he & his Daughter Nickol Gerritsma as Trustees for H.M. Wysocki Irrevocable Trust are

Notice of & Motion to Consolidate of Plaintiffs Melody & Courtney Gillespie- 8

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Cross Suing Plaintiffs in the same said Case #: 10-238961 to Quiet Title on the same property as is the subject of the Quiet Title Action Filed in this Case by Plaintiffs herein. (2) The Contents of the Courts Case file in #: 10-238961. (3) The Contents of Plaintiffs Verified Complaint in this Case #: 249049. (4) The Contents of Exhibits Attached hereto , Copies of Public Records in Tulare County Recorders Office; (5) The Public Records in the Tulare County Recorders Office Related to the real Property at Issue in Related Civil Cases 10-238961 & 249049, 1831 N. Lime Street, Porterville, California, including the Originals of the Documents Attached hereto as Exhibits 1 & 2, which are incorporated herein by Reference as if fully set forth and are hereby made a part hereof this Request.

Executed by my hand on this day, the- -day-of-the-tenth-month-Two-thousand-twelve, _______________________________ Melody Gillespie _______________________________ Courtney Gillespie

Notice of & Motion to Consolidate of Plaintiffs Melody & Courtney Gillespie- 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Melody Gillespie, c/o P.O. Box 8323 Porterville, California, 93258.

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF TULARE

Courtney Gillespie, Melody Gillespie, Plaintiffs, -VSRobert J. Fletcher, Et Al,

Case #: 249049

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS & AUTHORITIES OF Melody & Courtney Gillespie; IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR ORDER CONSOLIDATING CASES #: 249049 & 10-238961

Defendants. HEARING DATE: ____________________________ DEPT.: TIME:

Statement of Facts
This Case, #: 249049 is directly Related to Case #: 10-238961 Pursuant to Express Provisions of California Rules of Court Rule 3.300 & said Cases qualify for Consolidation under California CCP Section 1048 (a), & published Court Rulings on the subject of Consolidation of Civil Actions under CCP Section 1048(a). The known facts presently available in the Courts Record which the Court is Required & Requested to take Mandatory Judicial Notice of Pursuant to California Evidence Code Section 450-459

Notice of & Motion to Consolidate Civil Cases of Plaintiffs Melody & Courtney Gillespie- 10

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

in the Case files & attached as Exhibits , & in the Public Records in the Tulare County Recorders Office, establish that the Cross Complainants in Case # 10-238961, including Nicklas Arthur Hoffman, Nickol Gerritsma, H.M. Wysocki Irrevocable Trust, have been, for quite a while (years), & are at present perpetrating a clear Fraud Upon the Public, the Courts, & on Plaintiffs Melody & Courtney Gillespie regarding the true owners & Title holders of the real property located at 1831 N. Lime Street , Porterville, California, & they are in no way entitled to a full blown Trial on their said purported Cross Complaint, which Trial would be a Total waste of Judicial Resources, Time & Energy, which would Require a Summary Adjudication & Disposition of such a Case under the Policy & Doctrine of Judicial Economy. No Prejudice can Result to any party by the Consolidation of both Cases under Case #: 249049, but both Parties & this Court will benefit from such Consolidation, by saving time, energy, costs, & Judicial Resources, which establishes that Granting Consolidation of both Cases under one Case number is the most Economical & Equitable way of Administering Justice between the Parties in these Cases, which now Requires this Court to Grant this Motion. Based on the foregoing Plaintiffs herein Move for such Consolidation by this Court under Case #: 10-238961.

I THE COURT & PUBLIC RECORD ESTABLISHES THAT CASE 10-238961 & 249049 QUALIFY FOR CONSOLIDATION UNDER ONE CASE NUMBER PURSUANT TO EXPRESS PROVISIONS OF CALIFORNIA C.C.P. CODE SECTION 1048(a) A THE INDISPUTABLE FACTS IN THE COURT & PUBLIC RECORD NOW REQUIRE CONSOLIDATION OF BOTH CASES UNDER THE POLICY OF JUDICIAL ECONOMY & FOR THE EFFICIENT ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE BETWEEN THE PARTIES ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Notice of & Motion to Consolidate Civil Cases of Plaintiffs Melody & Courtney Gillespie- 11

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

California C.C.P. Section 1048(a) Expressly Provides the following: “1048. (a)”

“When actions involving a common question of law or fact are pending before the court, it may order a joint hearing or trial of any or all the matters in issue in the actions;it may order all the actions consolidated and it may make such orders concerning proceedings therein as may tend to avoid unnecessary costs or delay.(b) The court, in furtherance of convenience or to avoid prejudice, or when separate trials will be conducive to expedition and economy, may order a separate trial of any cause of action, including a cause of action asserted in a crosscomplaint, or of any separate issue or of any number of causes of action or issues, preserving the right of trial by jury required by the Constitution or a statute of this state or of the United States.” The granting or denial of a motion to consolidate rests in the sound discretion of the trial court. Fellner v. Steinbaum (1955) 132 Cal. App. 2d 509, 511. Further, California Rules of Court, Rule 3.300 “Related cases” Expressly Mandates the following: “ 2012 California Rules of Court Rule 3.300, “Related cases” Expressly Provides: (a) Definition of "related case" A pending civil case is related to another pending civil case, or to a civil case that was dismissed with or without prejudice, or to a civil case that was disposed of by judgment, if the cases: (1) (2) Involve the same parties and are based on the same or similar claims; Arise from the same or substantially identical transactions, incidents, or events

requiring the determination of the same or substantially identical questions of law or fact; (3) Involve claims against, title to, possession of, or damages to the same property; or

Notice of & Motion to Consolidate Civil Cases of Plaintiffs Melody & Courtney Gillespie- 12

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

(4)

Are likely for other reasons to require substantial duplication of judicial resources

if heard by different judges. (b) Duty to provide notice Whenever a party in a civil action knows or learns that the action or proceeding is related to another action or proceeding pending, dismissed, or disposed of by judgment in any state or federal court in California, the party must serve and file a Notice of Related Case. (c) Contents of the notice The Notice of Related Case must: (1) (2) List all civil cases that are related by court, case name, case number, and filing date; Identify the case that has the earliest filing date and the court and department in

which that case is pending; and (3) Describe the manner in which the cases are related.

(d) Service and filing of notice The Notice of Related Case must be filed in all pending cases listed in the notice and must be served on all parties in those cases. (e) Time for service The Notice of Related Case must be served and filed as soon as possible, but no later than 15 days after the facts concerning the existence of related cases become known. (f) Continuing duty to provide notice The duty under (b)-(e) is a continuing duty that applies when a party files a case with knowledge of a related action or proceeding, and that applies thereafter whenever a party learns of a related action or proceeding. (g) Response

Notice of & Motion to Consolidate Civil Cases of Plaintiffs Melody & Courtney Gillespie- 13

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Within 5 days after service on a party of a Notice of Related Case, the party may serve and file a response supporting or opposing the notice. The response must state why one or more of the cases listed in the notice are not related or why other good cause exists for the court not to transfer the cases to or from a particular court or department. The response must be filed in all pending cases listed in the notice and must be served on all parties in those cases. (h) Judicial action (1) Related cases pending in one superior court

If all the related cases have been filed in one superior court, the court, on notice to all parties, may order that the cases, including probate and family law cases, be related and may assign them to a single judge or department. In a superior court where there is a master calendar, the presiding judge may order the cases related. In a court in which cases are assigned to a single judge or department, cases may be ordered related as follows: (B) Where the cases listed in the notice include both unlimited and limited civil cases,

the judge who has the earliest filed unlimited civil case must determine whether the cases should be ordered related and assigned to his or her department; (E)

If the procedures for relating pending cases under this rule do not apply,

the procedures under Code of Civil Procedure section 1048 and rule 3.350 must be followed to consolidate cases pending in the same superior court.”
Plaintiffs, Movants herein, have filed a Notice of Related Case in this Case, which should be in the Courts Case file in this Action. “[1a] Petitioner concedes that "actions may be consolidated, in the discretion of the court, whenever it can be done without prejudice to a substantial right." (Code Civ. Proc., § 1048.)” California Supreme Court, In Bank, in: State Farm etc. Ins. Co. v. Superior Court, (1956) 47 Cal.2d 428, at page 430. In the same Case, the California Supreme Court, In Bank stated at page 866-867:

Notice of & Motion to Consolidate Civil Cases of Plaintiffs Melody & Courtney Gillespie- 14

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

“Defendants contend that as the plaintiffs and the dates of misappropriation were different the cases could not be consolidated, pointing out that they were consolidated not merely for trial purposes but into one action. "An action may be severed and actions may be consolidated, in the discretion of the court, whenever it can be done without prejudice to a substantial right." Code Civ. Proc., § 1048. "... the trial court is vested with a discretion to consolidate ... the exercise of such discretion will not be reviewed except in case of palpable abuse." Realty etc. Mtg. Co. v. Superior Court, 165 Cal. 543, 547 We can see no prejudice to defendants' substantial rights in the consolidation of the two actions. Practically all of the contentions made by defendants have been answered adversely by the decisions. [3] The fact

that evidence in the one case might not have been admissible in the other does not bar a consolidation. See Johnson v. Western Air Exp. Corp., 45 Cal.App.2d 614 Nor does the fact that all the parties are not the same. See Aufdemkamp v. Pierce, 4 Cal.App.2d 276 ; People v. Ocean Shore R., Inc., 22 Cal.App.2d 657 In McClure v. Donovan, 33 Cal.2d 717 ; the consolidation was upheld of an action brought by a sister for the
annulment of her brother's marriage with a proceeding to have the brother declared incompetent and a guardian of his person and estate appointed. [2b] Here the Whitehead action was brought to follow the misappropriations from him into certain property, while the corporation action was brought to follow other misappropriations into other property. Both causes of action arose out of one series of transactions, namely, defendant's embezzlement from the corporation and its predecessor. One of the reasons that defendants objected

to the consolidation is that thereby it was made easier for the plaintiffs to trace the stolen moneys than it would have been had the actions been separately tried. That very fact is a cogent one for upholding the action of the trial court. The
consolidation eliminated the necessity of two trials instead of one. The fact that defendant was in San Quentin, urged by defendants as a reason the consolidation should not have been made, has no bearing on the subject. Defendants would have been equally handicapped by his absence from court whether the cases were tried singly or consolidated.”

Notice of & Motion to Consolidate Civil Cases of Plaintiffs Melody & Courtney Gillespie- 15

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

“And it need hardly be said that no error appears in the order consolidating the two cases for trial. [2] This too is a matter committed to the sound discretion of the trial judge, and his decision will not be reviewed except upon a clear showing of abuse of discretion. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1048; Fisher v. Nash Bldg. Co., 113 Cal.App.2d 397 [248 P.2d 466].) No substantial rights of defendant were trenched upon by trying these two cases together.” Fellner v. Steinbaum, (1955) 132 Cal.App.2d 509 at page 511. “In American Enterprise, Inc. v. Van Winkle (1952) 39 Cal.2d 210 [246 P.2d 935], a case recognizing another exception to the rule that forbids a lessee from disputing his lessor's title, the court noted (p. 219): "In an action for declaratory relief, the proper function of the court is to make a full and complete declaration, disposing of all questions of rights, status or other legal relations encountered in construing the instrument before it." Due to the complexities of this case and the need to quiet title on the way to determining all of the issues, the most judicious approach would have been a consolidation of the three cases. fn. 3.” Greenhut v. Wooden (1982) 129 Cal. App. 3d 64, at page 69. “Petitioner contends that it was an abuse of discretion to deny its motion to consolidate the appeal from the Labor Commissioner's decision with the civil action for misappropriation of business records and unfair competition. Some showing was made that both cases related to the same employment relationship and involved the same time period. The court denied the motion on the basis that consolidation of the two different types of proceedings was necessarily inappropriate. Code of Civil Procedure section 1048, subdivision (a), provides that "When actions involving a common question of law or fact are pending before the court, it may order a joint hearing or trial of all or any of the matters in issue in the actions; it may order all the actions consolidated and it may make such orders concerning proceedings therein as may tend to avoid unnecessary costs or delay." There is no statutory prohibition preventing consolidation; the question of consolidation should be submitted to the court's discretion. (Fellner v. Steinbaum (1955) 132 Cal. App. 2d 509, 511 [282 P.2d 584]; 3 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (2d ed. 1971) Pleading, § 259.) The court apparently denied the motion to

Notice of & Motion to Consolidate Civil Cases of Plaintiffs Melody & Courtney Gillespie- 16

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

consolidate because it determined that consolidation was necessarily inappropriate where one of the actions was a trial de novo under Labor Code section 98.2.” ….”“A writ will issue commanding respondent court to vacate the challenged rulings and redetermine petitioner's motions in the exercise of discretion.” Sales Dimensions v. Superior Court (Whelan) (1979) 90 Cal. App. 3d 757 at pages 764-765.

“Provided that the rights of the parties are not prejudiced, consolidation of cases for trial is appropriate when it will conserve judicial resources and avoid unnecessary delays, costs and duplication. CCP §1048(a); State Farm v. Superior Court ("State Farm"), 47 Cal.2d 428, 431-432 (1956).” “Pursuant to CCP Section1048(a), two distinct types of consolidation are permitted: complete consolidation and consolidation for trial. Weil & Brown, Civil Procedure Before Trial (1999), §12:341 - Types of Consolidation. With complete consolidation, the actions are determined by a single set of findings and a single judgment. Stubblefield v. City of San Bernardino (Stubblefield), 32 Cal.App.4th 687, 689 (1995); Didier v. American Casualty Co. (Didier), 261 Cal.App.2d 743 (1968). As the Court held in Didier, a case in which a party unsuccessfully appealed the issuance of a single judgement in actions that were completely consolidated, "the trial court was not required to make separate findings and conclusions in each case and enter a separate judgment." 261 Cal.App.2d at 744. With consolidation for trial the actions are consolidated for trial but retain their separate status for purposes of findings and separate judgments. Unlike complete consolidation,with consolidation for trial, parties are entitled to separate judgements. Sanchez v. Santa Clara Superior Court (Sanchez) 203 Cal. App.3d 1391, 1396 (1988); Stubblefield, 32 Cal.App.4th at 688.
“1. The Local Plaintiffs Are Entitled to Separate Judgments on Their Quiet Title Claims” “The actions filed by the Local Plaintiffs seek to quiet title to their individual properties. With the Local Plaintiffs' quiet title actions, each landowner is entitled to a separate finding and
Notice of & Motion to Consolidate Civil Cases of Plaintiffs Melody & Courtney Gillespie- 17

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

judgement regarding that plaintiffs' groundwater rights, their ownership in and rights to groundwater storage space beneath their property, and the related property rights for which they seek a confirmation of their title. Relatedly, as to those municipal purveyors who claim, as an affirmative defense to these Local Plaintiffs' quiet title Complaints, to have acquired superior rights through prescription, these Local Plaintiffs' are entitled to a separate judgment regarding whether each of these municipal purveyors so claiming to have infringed upon that overlying owner's groundwater rights with the requisite adversity, openness, notoriousness, hostility, and uninterrupted continuity for the required period of time, against each individual overlying property owner. CCP §§318, 1007; Lindsay v. King, supra,138 Cal.App.2d at 336, 340-343. As with adverse possession of real property, the law does not permit prescriptive appropriation of groundwater "in gross." California case law consistently emphasizes that when there are substantial factual or legal questions which are not common among the actions, or when complete consolidation would prejudice a party's rights, complete consolidation is inappropriate. In Sanchez, the Court found that complete consolidation was inappropriate where two plaintiffs had filed separate actions in connection with a single automobile accident. The Court in Sanchez found that the nature and extent of the plaintiff's injuries were distinct and separate, and that the plaintiffs would "presumably expect separate judgements." 203 C.A.3d at 1396. Similarly, in McFarland v. Booker (McFarland), a plaintiff suffered back injuries resulting from two distinct automobile accidents, and filed two separate actions. 250 Cal.App.2d 402 (1967). The Court in McFarland ordered consolidation for the purpose of trying the issue of plaintiff's back problems, but refused to order complete consolidation because the two accidents presented numerous factual and legal issues that were not in common. Id. at 404. The holdings in Sanchez and McFarland were echoed by Weil & Brown. In discussing consolidation of actions resulting from airplane accidents, Weil & Brown conclude that "such cases are normally consolidated only for trial, not completely consolidated, because there are probably few common questions as to each plaintiff's injuries or losses." Weil & Brown, Civil Procedure Before Trial (1999), §1231.341.3 -Types of Consolidation.”

Notice of & Motion to Consolidate Civil Cases of Plaintiffs Melody & Courtney Gillespie- 18

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Movants, Plaintiffs herein, have Requested this Court to take Mandatory Judicial Notice in an accompanying Separate Request in support of this Motion, of the Courts Records in both Cases, & of the Public Records in Tulare County Recorders Office Relating to the Real Property in question in both Quiet Title Actions in both Cases # 249049 & # 10-238961. “[1] Code of Civil Procedure section 1048 grants discretion to the trial courts to consolidate actions involving common questions of law or fact. The trial court's decision will not be disturbed on appeal absent a clear showing [48 Cal.App.4th 979] of abuse of discretion. Estate of Baker (1982) 131 Cal.App.3d 471, 485; Fellner v. Steinbaum (1955) 132 Cal.App.2d 509, 511. [2] The Trust cites a number of cases from other jurisdictions in which the courts determined that the actions before them did not involve significant common issues, that the common issues did not predominate over the individual issues or that the risks of jury confusion or the prejudice to a party outweighed the reduction in time and expense that would result from consolidation. The issue before us is whether the cases consolidated here had common issues and whether undue confusion or prejudice was likely to result from the consolidation.”Todd-Stenberg v. Dalkon Shield Claimants Trust (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 976 , at pages 978-979. In the instant Case it is clear in the Record that Case #: 249049 & #: 10-238961 are Appropriate for Complete Consolidation, as the only Causes in 10-238961, Ejectment Declaratory Relief & Quiet Title are all based upon the same set of facts & the same Transaction as the Causes of Action in 249049, and all the named Parties in 10-238961, are also named as parties in 249049; both Quiet Title Actions are based on the Exact set of facts & the Exact Transaction between Nicklas Hoffman & Courtney Gillespie. The same Transaction between Nicklas Arthur Hoffman & Courtney Ray Gillespie contains all material facts to all causes of Action in 10-238961, and those facts are also at the core of most of the Causes of Action in the Case in #: 249049, not withstanding the causes of Action of Melody Gillespie against Nicklas Hoffman, which occurred at the same general location, on the same land at 1831 N. Lime Street, Porterville, California, during the same time frame as the other related Causes of Action & factual circumstances Therefore there

Notice of & Motion to Consolidate Civil Cases of Plaintiffs Melody & Courtney Gillespie- 19

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

would be no Prejudice to any party in any of the Related Cases if both Cases were completely Consolidated under Case #: 249049.

-CONCLUSIONIn light of all the foregoing, it is clear that the Consolidation of the two cases in question would not result in any prejudice to any party, & would in fact benefit all parties and the trial court, in that it would save time, costs, court resources, & would serve the important Policy & Doctrine of Judicial Economy, and therefore this Court should Grant this Motion & issue an Order Consolidating both Cases under Case #: 249049, & Plaintiffs, Movants herein respectfully Request that the Court does just that.

Executed by my hand on the ___ day of October, 2012, in the County of Tulare, Republic of California, _______________________________ Melody Gillespie _______________________________ Courtney Gillespie

Notice of & Motion to Consolidate Civil Cases of Plaintiffs Melody & Courtney Gillespie- 20

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

PROOF OF SERVICE
I the undersigned hereby Declare under penalty of perjury under the Laws of the State of of California that on the day of 10/ Document described as: NOTICE OF & MOTION FOR ORDER CONSOLIDATING CASES #: 249049 & #: 10238961; OF PLAINTIFFS Melody & Courtney Gillespie; Said Service was on the persons or parties named below at the Addresses to follow: /2012 I served the here attached

DEFENDANT ROBERT J. FLETCHER, P.O. BOX 824, Tulare Ca. 93275;

Alan Casselman, 139 E. Tulare, Tulare, California 93_____

Nickol Gerritsma, 1614 N. Bradley St., Visalia, California, 932___;

Nancy Casselman, 139 E. Tulare, Tulare, California 93_____

Said Service was by First Class US Mail, with said Document enclosed inside a sealed envelope, addressed as set forth above, the postage therefore fully prepaid by me. I am not a party to the within Case. I am over the age of eighteen years. My business address is: 934 W. Henderson, Porterville, California 93257. Executed by my hand on this ___ day of October, 2012, in Tulare County, California, _________________ Alan David

Notice of & Motion to Consolidate Civil Cases of Plaintiffs Melody & Courtney Gillespie- 21