Case Number: 19STCV37948    Hearing Date: April 18, 2023    Dept: 40

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 40

Background

Defendants Jafar Rashid, Rashid & Sons, Inc., S&E 786 Enterprise, LC, RD 786 Enterprises, Inc., Z&R Oil Corporation, JRJS, LLC, JRJS Holding, LLC, and Mohammed Khalid (Defendants) bring a motion to consolidate this action—comprised of LASC Action Nos. 19STCV37948, 19STCV38036, and 19STCV38066—with LASC Action No. 20STCV47489.

All actions are pending before Department 40.

The 19STCV38036 action was initiated on October 22, 2019, with Plaintiffs Sean Wong and Yuqi Huang and alleges (1) Breach of Contract, (2) Fraud, (3) Negligent Misrepresentation, (4) Breach of Fiduciary Duty, (5) Conversion, (6) Accounting, and (7) Unjust Enrichment against Defendants Jafar Rashid, Rashid & Sons, Inc., S&E 786 Enterprise, LC, RD 786 Enterprises, Inc., Z&R Oil Corporation, JRJS, LLC, JRJS Holding, LLC, Mohammed Khalid, and Does 1 through 100. The claims arise from allegations that Defendants solicited and secured investments of cash, equipment, material, and/or labor from Wong and Huang in connection to cannabis business ventures operated out of Huntington Park and Adelanto, California facilities—as well as a short-lived venture in Oakland, California—only for Defendants to, among other things, (1) divest investments from the cannabis ventures into Defendants’ personal ventures, such as Rashid & Sons, Z&R, RD 786, S&E 786, two gas stations, and two properties, (2) fail to invest $5 million into the cannabis ventures, as previously promised to Wong and Huang, and (3) ban Wong and Huang from access to and the operation of the Huntington Park facility, thus causing Wong and Huang damages.

The 19STCV38036 action was initiated on October 22, 2019, with Plaintiffs Dion Fatafehi and URO, LLC alleging (1) Breach of Contract, (2) Fraud, (3) Negligent Misrepresentation, (4) Breach of Fiduciary Duty, (5) Conversion, (6) Accounting, and (7) Unjust Enrichment against Defendants Jafar Rashid, Rashid & Sons, Inc., S&E 786 Enterprise, LC, RD 786 Enterprises, Inc., Z&R Oil Corporation, JRJS, LLC, JRJS Holding, LLC, Mohammed Khalid, and Does 1 through 100. The claims arise from allegations that Defendants hired Plaintiff Fatafehi to provide labor and services related to cannabis oil distillation and distribution for the Huntington Park facility, specifically promising Fatafehi that he and URO, LLC would be well compensated for buying crude cannabis oil, to be processed by Defendant JRJS at the Huntington facility and sold by Plaintiffs Fatafehi and URO, LLC, therethrough inducing Fatafehi and URO, LLC to invest more than $300,000 into such venture, only for Defendants to later process the crude cannabis oil, rescind Fatafehi’s and URO’s access to the Huntington Park facility, and divest investments from the cannabis ventures into Defendants’ personal ventures, such as Rashid & Sons, Z&R, RD 786, S&E 786, two gas stations, and two properties, thus causing harm to Fatafehi and URO, LLC.

The 19STCV37948 action was initiated on October 23, 2019 by Plaintiffs Samuel Kim, Chongsik Park, and Cali Blue Sky Investment, Inc. (CBSI). (This Complaint included claims for Common Law Trademark Infringement and Trademark Dilution that were dismissed pursuant to a September 17, 2020 stipulation to consolidate by the parties, discussed below.) Kim, Park, and CBSI’s operative October 16, 2020 First Amended Complaint (FAC)—which combines the allegations from the 19STCV37948, 19STCV38036, and 19STCV38066 actions—alleges (1) Breach of Written Contract, (2) Breach of Oral Contract, (3) Fraud, (4) Negligent Misrepresentation, (5) Breach of Fiduciary Duty, (6) Conversion, (7) Accounting, and (8) Unjust Enrichment against Defendants Jafar Rashid, Rashid & Sons, Inc., S&E 786 Enterprise, LC, RD 786 Enterprises, Inc., Z&R Oil Corporation, JRJS, LLC, JRJS Holding, LLC, Mohammed Khalid, and Does 1 through 100. The claims arise from allegations that Defendants solicited and secured investments of cash, materials, and/or equipment from Kim, Park, and CBSI in connection to cannabis business ventures operated out of California City and Huntington Park, California—and later, the Adelanto and Oakland facilities—only for Defendants to, among other things, (1) divest investments from the cannabis ventures into Defendants’ personal ventures, such as Rashid & Sons, Z&R, RD 786, S&E 786, two gas stations, and two properties, (2) fail to invest $5 million into the cannabis ventures, as previously promised to Plaintiffs, and (3) ban Kim and Park from access to and the operation of the Huntington Park facility, thus causing Kim, Park, and CBSI damages.

On December 20, 2019, Defendants Jafar Rashid, Rashid & Sons, Inc., S&E 786 Enterprise, LC, RD 786 Enterprises, Inc., Z&R Oil Corporation, JRJS, LLC, and Mohammed Khalid filed Cross-Complaints against the Complaints in the 19STCV37948, 19STCV38036, and 19STCV38066 actions. These Defendants’ operative December 14, 2020 First Amended Cross-Complaint alleges claims of (1) Equitable Indemnity, (2) Equitable Contribution, (3) Declaratory Relief, (4) Breach of Fiduciary Duty, (5) Aiding and Abetting Breach of Fiduciary Duty, (6) Conversion, and (7) Tortious Interference with Economic Prospective against Syed Hussain, Samuel Kim, Dion Fatafehi, Sean Wong, and Roes 1-25. The claims arise from allegations that, among other things, while participating in the cannabis ventures described above, Hussain embezzled from JRJS, with Kim, Fatafehi, and Wong providing material assistance to Hussain in Hussain’s breaches of fiduciary duty, involving conversion of, at a minimum, $328,452.50 in assets belonging to JRJS.

On March 23, 2020, the Court related the three above actions pursuant to a request by Defendants Rashid, et al., with LASC Action No. 19STCV37948 as the lead case.

Then, on September 17, 2020, per stipulation of the parties, the Court consolidated the three above actions. (Hereafter, the Court refers to the 19STCV37948, 19STCV38036, and 19STCV38066 actions as the 2019 Consolidated Cases.) Importantly, the stipulation also dismissed without prejudice claims in the original October 23, 2019 19STCV37948 Complaint alleging claims of Common Law Trademark and Trademark Dilution, and permitted Kim, Park, and CBSI to bring these claims again in state or federal court.

On December 11, 2020, Plaintiff Kim and CBSI initiated LASC Action No. 20STCV47489, therein alleging claims of (1) Statutory Trademark Infringement/Counterfeiting, (2) Dilution of Famous Mark, (3) Common Law Trademark Infringement, (4) Unfair Competition, and (5) Deceptive Business Practices against United Health and Care Center (UHCC), JRJS, LLC, Chango Club, Inc., Jafar Rashid, Vikram Sood, Vibha Patel, Sanjiv Patel, Lorraine Lugo, Mohammed Khalid, Zahid Butt, and Does 1-50. The claims arise from allegations that Samuel Kim owns the trademarks for five ‘Big Chief Marks’ registered with the State of California for pre-filled vaporizer cartridges, disposable pens containing cannabis extract, cannabis flower, and related products, and that in December 2018, Kim granted UHCC and JRJS the nonexclusive right to manufacture and distribute cannabis vape cartridges bearing the Big Chief Marks, with Kim revoking the license on June 23, 2019 amid a fallout between the parties, only for Defendants to continue using the marks thereafter without authorization from Kim or Kim’s new licensee, CBSI.

On January 15, 2021, Syed Hussain filed a Cross-Complaint in the 2019 Consolidated Cases, with the operative August 30, 2021 First Amended Cross-Complaint (FAXC) alleging (1) Breach of Written Contract, (2) Fraud, (3) Negligent Misrepresentation and Deceit, (4) Breach of Fiduciary Duty, (5) Accounting, and (6) Unjust Enrichment against Jafar Rashid, Rashid & Sons, Inc., S&E 786 Enterprise, LC, RD 786 Enterprises, Inc., Z&R Oil Corporation, JRJS, LLC, JRJS Holding, LLC, Mohammed Khalid, and Zoes 1 through 100. The claims arise from allegations that Hussain was an equity owner and Director in the Huntington Park facility, entitled to compensation of at least $85,000 per year, and that Hussain had helped obtain and spend investments secured for Defendants, but that, on June 24, 2019, Rashid, Khalid, JRJS, and JRJS Holding locked Hussain out of the Huntington Park facility, instructing security not to permit Hussain to enter the facility despite Hussain’s owner and Director status, and with Rashid, Khalid, JRJS, and JRJS Holding diverting over $1 million of investments from the cannabis ventures into their personal ventures, including Rashid & Sons, Z&R, RD 786, S&E 786, two gas stations, and two properties.

On February 5, 2021, JRJS, LLC filed a Cross-Complaint in LASC Action No. 20STCV47489, with the operative July 28, 2021 First Amended Cross-Complaint (“FAXC”) alleging claims of (1) Declaratory Relief, (2) Trademark Infringement, (3) Cancellation of Registration for Trademark [Assignment], and (4) Cancellation of Registration for Trademark [Abandonment] against Samuel Kim, CBSI, and Roes 1 through 10. The claims arise from allegations that JRJS became the rightful owner of the common law Big Chief Marks with respect to cannabis products following Kim’s oral assignment of those rights to JRJS, and that it is Kim and CBSI who have infringed on JRJS’s rights by continuing their use of the Big Chief Marks, entitling JRJS to a cancellation of the Big Chief Marks’ registrations with the State of California, either on assignment or abandonment grounds.

On March 15, 2023, the defendants in the 2019 Consolidated Cases—Jafar Rashid, Rashid & Sons, Inc., S&E 786 Enterprise, LC, RD 786 Enterprises, Inc., Z&R Oil Corporation, JRJS, LLC, JRJS Holding, LLC, and Mohammed Khalid—brought a motion to consolidate the 2019 Consolidated Cases with the 20STCV47489 action brought by Samuel Kim and CBSI, hereafter referred to as the 2020 Action.

On April 3, 2023, the 19STCV37948 Plaintiffs—Dion Fatafehi, URO, LLC, Sean Wong, Yuqi Huang, Samuel Kim, Chongsik Park, and CBSI filed an opposition to the March 15th motion.

On April 11, 2023, the 19STCV37948 Defendants replied to the April 3rd opposition.

The motion to consolidate is now before the Court.

For ease of reference, the Court refers to the movants as Defendants and the opposing parties as Plaintiffs.

Motion to Consolidate

Legal Standard

When cases involving a common question of law or fact are pending in the same superior court, i.e., in the same county, the cases can be consolidated on a party’s motion or on the court’s own motion under Code of Civil Procedure section 1048, subdivision (a).

Cases can be consolidated for (1) all purposes (Hamilton v. Asbestos Corp. (200) 22 Cal.4th 1127, 1147; see Code Civ. Proc., § 1048, subd. (a)), (2) for trial (Stubblefield Constr. Co. v. City of San Bernardino (1995) 32 Cal.App.4th 687, 701; see Code Civ. Proc., § 1048, subd. (a)), or (3) for limited purposes, e.g., discovery or pretrial matters (see Code Civ. Proc., § 1048, subd. (a); see, e.g., State v. Altus Fin., S.A. (2005) 36 Cal.4th 1284, 1293 [cases consolidated for discovery and pretrial matters]; Austin B. v. Escondido Un. Sch. Dist. (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 860, 870 [cases consolidated for discovery and trial]; Frieman v. San Rafael Rock Quarry, Inc. (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 29, 33 [cases consolidated for discovery and pretrial determinations]).

To prevail on a motion to consolidate, a movant must establish that (1) the cases are pending before the same court, (2) the cases share a common question of law or fact, and (3) the benefits of consolidation outweigh the burdens. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 1048, subd. (a).)

Analysis

I. Case Pending Before Same Court

A movant for consolidation must establish that the cases being consolidated are pending in the same superior court, i.e., in the same county. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1048, subd. (a).) Cases are pending in the same superior court even if they are pending in different departments. (See, e.g., Estate of Bliss (1962) 199 Cal.App.2d 630, 640-641 [court consolidated probate case with case in equity to set aside inter vivos gift]; contra. Sup. Ct., Los Angeles Cty. Loc. R., rule 3.3, subd. (g)(1) [“Cases may not be consolidated unless they are in the same department”].) A case is considered to be pending from the time it is filed until its final determination on appeal or until the time for appeal has passed, unless judgment is satisfied sooner. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1049; see, e.g., Sosnick v. Sosnick (1999) 71 Cal.App.4th 1335, 1339-1340 [court exceeded its jurisdiction when it consolidated pending tort action with dissolution action because dissolution action was no longer pending].)

While not expressly argued in the motion to consolidate, the Court notes that the cases Defendants seek to consolidate are all pending before the same Court and Department: Los Angeles Superior Court, Department 40. Further, the 2019 Consolidated Cases were related on January 25, 2021. The motion therefore satisfies the first element of Code of Civil Procedure section 1048, subdivision (a)—cases pending in the same court—as well as Los Angeles County Rule, rule 3.3, subdivision (g)(1).

II. Common Questions of Law or Fact

The movant for consolidation must establish that the cases sought to be consolidated involve a common question of fact or law. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 1048, subd. (a).) Common questions of law or fact can arise in cases that share common parties and involve a common transaction (e.g., contract) or incident (e.g., automobile accident). (See, e.g., Code Civ. Proc., § 377.62, subd. (b) [wrongful death action and survivor action can be consolidated under section 1048 when actions arise from same wrongful act or neglect]; Martin-Bragg v. Moore (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 367, 385 [trial court has power to consolidate unlawful-detainer proceeding with quiet title action involving same property because successful claim of title by tenant would defeat landlord’s right to possession]; Sanchez v. Superior Court (1988) 203 Cal.App.3d 1391, 1395 [cases arising from same car accident were ordered consolidated for trial].) The more predominant and significant the common questions are to the litigation, the more likely the motion will be granted. (Cf. Code Civ. Proc., § 404.1 [factors considered for coordination].)

In their motion, Defendants argue that the 2019 Consolidated Cases and the 2020 Action involve common questions of law and fact for several reasons. First, Defendants argue that little differentiates the claims made in the 2019 Consolidated Cases and the 2020 Action. Second, Defendants argue that questions of law and fact overlap in the 2020 Action’s FAC and the Rashid FAXC in the 2019 Consolidated Cases. Third, Defendants argue that trial in the 2019 Consolidated Cases and the 2020 Action will share overlapping issues. Fourth, Defendants argue that separate trials could result in inconsistencies as to whether Syed Hussain made agreements for JRJS. Fifth, Defendants argue that the 2019 Consolidated Cases involve questions of theft by Kim that affect recovery in the 2020 Action. Last, Defendants argue that Samuel Kim’s involvement with JRJS, as alleged in the 2019 Consolidated Cases, is intertwined with Kim’s allegations related to trademark claims. (Mot., p. 4.)

In opposition, Plaintiffs argue several points. First, Plaintiffs argue that consolidation is not proper because the Court severed the Trademark Infringement and Dilution claims from the 2019 Consolidated Cases, permitting their filing in a separate action in state or federal court. (Opp’n, pp. 8-9, Coons Decl., Ex. 1 [September 17, 2020 stipulation].) Second, Plaintiffs argue that consolidation is not proper because the 2019 Consolidated Cases and the 2020 Action do not involve common questions of law and fact where Defendants’ assertions of common ground between the actions is mere conjecture and where trademark liability in the 2020 Action involves legal elements, arguments and defenses vastly different than the those related to the Plaintiffs’ claims in the 2019 Consolidated Cases, i.e., breach of contract, fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, conversion, accounting, and unjust enrichment. (Opp’n, pp. 9-13.) Third, Plaintiffs argue that consolidation is not proper because the two actions involve different evidence where evidence as to the business agreements and financials in the 2019 Consolidated Cases does not relate to evidence regarding the Big Chief Marks and their counterfeit use in the State of California. (Opp’n, pp. 13-14.) Last, Plaintiffs argue that consolidation is not proper because the actions contemplate different damages where the 2019 Consolidated Cases seek recovery on investment monies and corresponding interest, costs, and punitive damages and the 2020 Action seeks damages related to infringement, injunctive relief, forfeitures, and fees and costs. (Opp’n, pp. 14-15.)

In reply, Defendants argue several points. First, Defendants argue that they did not sever the trademark claim and the Court did not effect a severance. (Reply, pp. 1-2.) Second, Defendants argue that the 2019 Consolidated Cases and 2020 Action are inextricably linked through, among other things, (a) the overlap of parties, witnesses, and counsel in the actions, (b) discovery being conducted as if the matters were already consolidated, and (c) the relations between Plaintiffs weaving through both actions. (Reply, pp. 2-4.)

The Court finds that the 2019 Consolidated Cases and 2020 Action do not involve common questions of fact and law.

While many of the parties, witnesses, and counsel will overlap between the two actions, the actions involve separate evidentiary showings, and thus, differing questions of law and fact. The 2019 Consolidated Cases will delve into the agreements between Plaintiffs and Defendants related to investments in Defendants’ cannabis ventures, the injuries that Plaintiffs suffered when Defendants forced Plaintiffs out of the business ventures, and cross claims by Defendants related to indemnity, as well as harms to JRJS through conversion of its assets by Plaintiffs. The evidentiary showings that must be made for these issues will flow evenly through the three consolidated actions because, for example, if Plaintiffs can show that Defendants acted with fraudulent intent in soliciting investments for their cannabis business ventures only to defraud their investors, all Plaintiffs in the 2019 Consolidated Actions may be able to recover not only damages, but punitive damages based on Defendants’ egregious misconduct. By contrast, the evidentiary showings that need to be made for the 2020 Action involve evidence relating to whether Kim in fact owns the Big Chief Marks and whether Kim owned the Big Chief Marks within the context of use on cannabis products, when and how the parties used the Big Chief Marks in the marketplace, whether the use of the marks by Defendants diluted Kim’s use of the marks, whether actions by Kim and CBSI resulted in an abandonment of the marks, and whether Kim’s original assignment of the marks to JRJS resulted in complete divestiture of the marks to JRJS. Because the Court finds a clear contrast in questions of fact and law, the overlapping parties, witnesses, and counsel are of little account for the purpose of consolidation.

Further, the Court finds it relevant that Plaintiffs’ and Defendants’ September 17, 2020 stipulation to consolidate the 2019 Consolidated Cases dismissed without prejudice the trademark infringement and dilution claims originally pleaded in Kim, Park, and CBSI’s October 23, 2019 Complaint in the 19STCV37948 action, claims now pleaded in the 2020 Action’s FAC. (See Opp’n, Coons Decl., Ex. 1.) Indeed, the stipulation permits Plaintiff Kim to reassert the trademark claims in state or federal court. (See Opp’n, Coons Decl., Ex. 1, p. 1.) If the stipulation explicitly provides that the trademark claims could be filed in federal court, then it is reasonable to conclude that the parties contemplated that the 2019 Consolidated Cases would be adjudicated separately from the trademark claims now advanced in the 2020 Action.

Based on these grounds, the Court finds that the motion to consolidate fails to meet establish the second element needed for consolidation: common questions of law and fact.

III. Benefits Outweigh Burdens

The movant for consolidation should establish that the benefits of consolidation outweigh the burdens. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 1048, subd. (a).) To establish this, the movant should argue that consolidation will:

(1) Save time (i.e., length of time to conclude one suit versus multiple suits) (see Code Civ. Proc., § 1048, subd. (a) [“costs”]);

(2) Save money (see Code Civ. Proc., § 1048, subd. (a) [“delay”]);

(3) Help prevent the inconsistent adjudication of common and factual legal issues (see Sunrise Fin., LLC v. Superior Court (2019) 32 Cal.App.5th 114, 121; cf. Code Civ. Proc., § 404.1 [factors considered for coordination]);

(4) Lessen the burden on judicial resources (Code Civ. Proc., § 404.1 [factors considered for coordination]);

(5) Promote the convenience of the parties, witnesses, and attorneys (see Sunrise Fin., LLC v. Superior Court, supra, 32 Cal.App.5th at p. 121; cf. Code Civ. Proc., § 404.1 [factors considered for coordination]);

(6) Encourage settlement (cf. Code Civ. Proc., § 404.1 [factors considered for coordination]); and

(7) Avoid prejudice (see, e.g., Martin-Bragg v. Moore, supra, 219 Cal.App.4th at pp. 370-371 [trial court’s refusal to consolidate cases prejudiced defendant by denying opportunity for discovery and forcing litigation of complex issue in summary proceeding].)

In their motion, Defendants argue that the benefits of consolidation outweigh its burdens for several reasons. First, they argue substantial prejudice to Defendants will arise from a lack of consolidation where a failure to consolidate may result in inconsistent verdicts as to the investments in the 2019 Consolidated Cases and the trademark questions in the 2020 Action. Second, they argue that Kim’s bringing of the 2020 Action is mere sham pleading. Third, they argue that no other party will be prejudiced by consolidation where consolidation would give the parties an opportunity to present their alleged damages in the same action and eliminate the risk of potentially confusing a jury or forcing the parties to take inconsistent positions. Fourth, they argue that if these cases are not consolidated, the parties are at risk of severe prejudice insofar as they will be forced to participate in duplicative trials and incur unnecessary costs and fees to litigate both actions. Last, Defendants generally argue that consolidation would not adversely affect either case, and would only avoid unnecessary costs, duplication of law and motion, and potentially inconsistent findings, where judicial resources will be efficiently utilized if the cases are consolidated into one lawsuit and one trial. (Reply, pp. 4–5.)

In opposition, Plaintiffs argue that the benefits of consolidation do not outweigh its burdens for several reasons. First, they argue that consolidation would require Plaintiffs Fatafehi, URO LLC, Wong, Huan, and Park to needlessly participate in and sit through a prolonged trial involving evidence and witnesses unrelated to their claims, causing waste of their time and unnecessary fees and expenses. Second, Plaintiff Kim and CBSI would be prejudiced by consolidation where consolidation will prolong a final determination as to the trademark claims and result in additional fees and costs based on participation in issues solely related to Fatafehi, URO LLC, Wong, Huang, and Park. Third, trial has recently been continued in the 2019 Consolidated Cases, further prejudicing adjudication of the trademark claims. Fourth, any argument that Defendants will be prejudiced is unfounded because verdicts in the 2019 Consolidated Cases and the 2020 Action cannot result in inconsistencies where the claims and damages arising therefrom are wholly different. Last, the benefits of consolidation do not outweigh its burdens because a jury could confuse liability between the claims raised in the 2019 Consolidated Cases and the 2020 Action and because the damages prayed for in one action could unfairly offset damages in the other action. (Opp’n, pp. 15-17.)

In reply, Defendants argue that no parties will be prejudiced by consolidation. (Reply, p. 4.)

The Court finds that the burdens of consolidation outweigh its benefits.

Consolidation will hardly save time and money where the Court has determined that the 2019 Consolidated Cases and the 2020 Action will require different evidentiary showings. Further, and contrary to Defendants’ prejudice arguments, because the Court has already concluded that different questions of fact and law are triggered by the two actions, consolidation will not help prevent inconsistent legal determinations, or even lessen the burden on judicial resources. Admittedly, consolidation could promote the convenience of the parties, witnesses, and attorneys and encourage settlement. On the other end, however, prejudice could result from consolidation. The Court is concerned of the risk of confusing the jury by allowing its determination of liability and damages in the 2019 Consolidated Cases to influence the 2020 Action’s liability and damages and vice versa, particularly where the actions do not share common questions of law and fact.

Based on these grounds, the Court finds that the motion to consolidate fails to meet establish the third element needed for consolidation: benefits of consolidation outweighing its burdens.

 IV. Consolidation Conclusion

Having failed to establish the second and third elements for consolidation, Defendants’ motion is DENIED.

The Court therefore need not reach Plaintiffs’ argument that the Court should deny this motion as procedurally defective (Opp’n, pp. 17-18; Reply, p. 4), an argument the Court notes is made on the sixteenth page of the opposition’s points and authorities, in contravention of California Rules of Court, rule 3.1113, subdivision (d), limiting points and authorities for oppositions not involving summary judgment or adjudication to fifteen pages.

Conclusion

Defendants Jafar Rashid, Rashid & Sons, Inc., S&E 786 Enterprise, LC, RD 786 Enterprises, Inc., Z&R Oil Corporation, JRJS, LLC, JRJS Holding, LLC and Mohammed Khalid’s Motion to Consolidate Case No. 19STCV37948 with Related Case No. 20STCV47489 is DENIED because the motion failed to show that the 2019 Consolidated Cases and the 2020 Action involve common questions of law and fact or that the benefits of consolidation outweigh its burdens.