Preview
1 Elizabeth M. Pappy (SBN 157069)
E-mail: epappy@bwslaw.com
2 BURKE, WILLIAMS & SORENSEN, LLP
60 South Market Street., Ste. 1000
3 Mountain View, CA 95113 12/22/2021
Tel: 408.606.6300
4
Jessica Dayton (SBN 231698)
5 E-mail: jdayton@adzlaw.com
ADZ Law, LLP
6 2000 Alameda de las Pulgas, Ste. 161
San Mateo, CA 94403
7 Tel: 650.458.2300
8 Attorneys for Plaintiff
JACQUELIN ARCHIE
9
10 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
11 COUNTY OF SAN MATEO
12
13 JACQUELIN ARCHIE, Case No. 21-CIV-05835
14 Plaintiff, PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF LODGING
EXHIBITS IN SUPPORT OF MOTION
15 v. FOR CONSOLIDATION
16 WILLARD ARCHIE, and DOES 1 to 10, DATE:
TIME:
17 Defendants. DEPT.:
18 Action Filed: October 29, 2021
19
20 ///
21 ///
22 ///
23 ///
24 ///
25 ///
26 ///
27 ///
28 ///
B URKE , W ILLIAMS & -1-
S ORENSEN , LLP OAK #4891-5008-0518 v1
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
SAN JOSE
PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF LODGING EXHIBITS ISO MOTION FOR CONSOLIDATION
I
1 TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR COUNSEL OF RECORD:
2
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Plaintiff JACQUELIN ARCHIE hereby lodges the
3
following exhibits in support of her Motion for Consolidation.
4
5 I
Exhibit 1 Notice of Motion and Motion for Consolidation; Memorandum of Points and
6
Authorities in Support Thereof
7
Exhibit 2 Declaration of Elizabeth M. Pappy in Support of Motion for Consolidation
8
Exhibit 3 Proof of Service
9
10 Dated: December 21, 2021 BURKE, WILLIAMS & SORENSEN, LLP
11
12
By:
13 Elizabeth M. Pappy
Attorneys for Plaintiff
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
B URKE , W ILLIAMS & -2-
S ORENSEN , LLP OAK #4891-5008-0518 v1
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
SAN JOSE
PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF LODGING EXHIBITS ISO MOTION FOR CONSOLIDATION
II
EXHIBIT 1
Electronic.ally
FILED
by Superla, Coor! of California, Coont)' of San Maleo
1 Elizabeth M. Pappy (SBN 157069) ON
12/17/2021 11:12 AM
E-mail: epappy@bwslaw.com
2 BURKE, WILLIAMS & SORENSEN, LLP
60 South Market Street., Ste. 1000
3 Mountain View, CA 95113
Tel: 408.606.6300
4
Jessica Dayton (SBN 231698)
5 E-mail: jdayton@adzlaw.com
ADZ Law, LLP
6 2000 Alameda de las Pulgas, Ste. 161
San Mateo, CA 94403
7 Tel: 650.458.2300
8 Attorneys for Plaintiff
JACQUELIN ARCHIE
9
10 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
11 COUNTY OF SAN MATEO
12
13 WILLARD ARCHIE, Case No. 19FAM02618
14 Petitioner, PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND
MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE
15 v.
DATE: 02/25/2022
16 JACQUELIN ARCHIE, TIME: 9:00 a.m.
DEPT.: 15
17 Respondent.
18
19 Full Caption of Second Case to be Consolidate
20 Case No. 21-CIV-05835
JACQUELIN ARCHIE,
21
Plaintiff,
22
v. Action Filed: October 29, 2021
23
WILLARD ARCHIE, and DOES 1 to 10,
24
Defendants.
25
26
27 ///
28 ///
B URKE , W ILLIAMS & OAK #4877-6915-5590 v1 -1-
S ORENSEN , LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
SAN JOSE
PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE
1 TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR COUNSEL OF RECORD:
2 YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT on ___________, 20__ at _______. in
3 Department ___ of this Court, or as soon thereafter as the Court’s calendar permits, Plaintiff
4 JACQUELIN ARCHIE will move this Court to consolidate San Mateo County Superior Court
5 Case No. 21-CIV-05835 and Case No. 19FAM02618.
6 This motion is based on the grounds that good cause exists to consolidate these two
7 actions under Code of Civil Procedures section 1048(a) in that these actions involve common
8 questions of law or fact and that consolidation will avoid unnecessary costs, duplication of
9 evidence, and delay.
10 This motion will be based on this notice and motion, the memorandum of points and
11 authorities in support thereof, the declaration of Elizabeth Pappy, the files and records in these
12 actions, and any further evidence and argument that the Court may receive at or before the
13 hearing.
14 List of Parties Required by California Rule of Court 3.350(a)(1)(A)
15 As required by California Rule of Court 3.350(a)(1)(A), the following is a list of all names
16 parties in each of the cases, the names of those who have appeared, and the names of their
17 respective attorneys of record.
18 Parties in Lead Case 19FAM02618
19 # Name Type Counsel of Record
20 1. JACQUELIN ARCHIE Respondent Elizabeth M. Pappy (SBN 157069)
E-mail: epappy@bwslaw.com
21 Burke, Williams & Sorensen, LLP
60 South Market Street., Ste. 1000
22
Mountain View, CA 95113
23 Tel: 408.606.6300
2. WILLARD ARCHIE Petitioner Kimberly E. Lewellen (SBN 243663)
24 E-mail: kim@lsflg.com
25 Lewellen Strebe and Hopper, P.C.
50 Osgood Place, Suite 308
26 San Francisco, CA 94133
Tel: (415) 818-1106
27
28
B URKE , W ILLIAMS & OAK #4877-6915-5590 v1 -2-
S ORENSEN , LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
SAN JOSE
PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE
1 Parties in Related Case 21-CIV-05835
2
3 # Name Type Counsel of Record
4 1. JACQUELIN ARCHIE Plaintiff Elizabeth M. Pappy (SBN 157069)
E-mail: epappy@bwslaw.com
5 Burke, Williams & Sorensen, LLP
60 South Market Street., Ste. 1000
6
Mountain View, CA 95113
7 Tel: 408.606.6300
2. JACQUELIN ARCHIE Plaintiff Jessica Dayton (SBN 231698)
8 E-mail: jdayton@adzlaw.com
ADZ Law, LLP
9 2000 Alameda de las Pulgas, Ste. 161
San Mateo, CA 94403
10 Tel: 650.458.2300
11 3. WILLARD ARCHIE Defendant Patrick T. Freeman
201 Spear Street, Suite 1100
12 San Francisco, CA 94105
pfreeman@vallemakoff.com
13
14 Dated: December 17, 2021 BURKE, WILLIAMS & SORENSEN, LLP
15
16
By:
17 Elizabeth M. Pappy
Attorneys for Plaintiff
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
B URKE , W ILLIAMS & OAK #4877-6915-5590 v1 -3-
S ORENSEN , LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
SAN JOSE
PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE
Electronically
FILED
by Superior Cawt of California, Coont)' of San Maleo
1 Elizabeth M. Pappy (SBN 157069) ON 12/17/2021 11:12 AM
E-mail: epappy@bwslaw.com By_ _.,_,,,,~~~"'-='~.....,""-- - -
2 BURKE, WILLIAMS & SORENSEN, LLP
60 South Market Street., Ste. 1000
3 Mountain View, CA 95113
Tel: 408.606.6300
4
Jessica Dayton (SBN 231698)
5 E-mail: jdayton@adzlaw.com
ADZ Law, LLP
6 2000 Alameda de las Pulgas, Ste. 161
San Mateo, CA 94403
7 Tel: 650.458.2300
8 Attorneys for Plaintiff
JACQUELIN ARCHIE
9
10 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
11 COUNTY OF SAN MATEO
12
13 WILLARD ARCHIE, Case No. 19FAM02618
14 Petitioner, MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF
15 v. RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
TO CONSOLIDATE
16 JACQUELIN ARCHIE,
DATE: 02/25/2022
17 Respondent. TIME: 9:00 a.m.
DEPT.: 15
18
19 Case No. 21-CIV-05835
JACQUELIN ARCHIE,
20
Plaintiff,
21
v. Action Filed: October 29, 2021
22
WILLARD ARCHIE, and DOES 1 to 10,
23
Defendants.
24
25
26 ///
27 ///
28 ///
B URKE , W ILLIAMS & -1-
S ORENSEN , LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
SAN JOSE
PLAINTIFF’S MPA’S IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE
1 I. INTRODUCTION AND STATEMENT OF RELEVANT FACTS.
2 Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1048(a), Respondent Jacquelin Archie seeks
3 an order consolidating the related case of Archie v. Archie, et al., San Mateo County Superior
4 Court Case No. 21-CIV-05835 (the “Civil Action”), filed on October 29, 2021 into this action for
5 Case Management purposes only. This action was filed on November 6, 2019 (“Family Action”).
6 Consolidation of the two Actions is in the interests of judicial economy and will result in
7 substantial benefits for both the Court and the parties, given that Judge Franchi has been presiding
8 over the Family Action, which involves community property issues that are germane to the Civil
9 Action, and which likely cannot be resolved without resolution of the Civil Action.
10 Respondent Jacquelin Archie (“Respondent”) and Petitioner Willard Archie (“Petitioner”)
11 were in a romantic relationship and began living together at real property located at 55 Joyce
12 Road, Hillsborough, CA (“the Property”) in 2013. At this time Petitioner was finalizing a divorce
13 and title to the Property was transferred pursuant to those divorce proceedings to Petitioner and
14 his parents on October 15, 2013.
15 In partnership with and at the request of Petitioner, Respondent began funding
16 improvements to the Property in 2012 with the implicit agreement that Respondent would have an
17 equal ownership interest in the Property and the equity going forward. Respondent contributed in
18 excess of $500,000 of her own funds to Property improvements in furtherance of the Partnership
19 agreement, up to and after the Parties married on September 9, 2015.
20 In furtherance of the partnership agreement, title to the Property was transferred from
21 Petitioner and his parents, to Petitioner and Respondent as husband and wife on January 19, 2018.
22 The parties refinanced the Property in April of 2018 and June of 2019, each time in both of their
23 names. The Parties separated in or about November 2019. The value of the Property has
24 increased steadily over time, being valued at $2.1 million in 2013 when the title was transferred
25 to Petitioner and his parents; $3.2 million in 2018 at the time of title transfer to Respondent and
26 Petitioner, after Respondent’s improvements; and $3.3 million in November 2019 at the time of
27 the Parties’ separation. The Property currently has an estimated value of $4,282,500.
28 Petitioner inexplicably claims that the $500,000+ contributed to the improvement of the
B URKE , W ILLIAMS & -2-
S ORENSEN , LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
SAN JOSE
PLAINTIFF’S MPA’S IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE
1 Property, which significantly increased the value, was a “gift”, and takes the position in the
2 Family Action that the Property is entirely his separate property but for the small portion he
3 agrees is community property. Petitioner advocates that all appreciation prior to the transfer is his
4 alone which is incorrect.
5 Respondent filed the Civil Action on October 29, 2021, seeking to recover equity earned
6 in the Property due to her substantial financial contributions and the agreements with Petitioner.
7 Respondent seeks to recover for breach of partnership agreement, breach of fiduciary duty,
8 domestic violence, and gender violence, among other causes of action. The relief requested by
9 Respondent includes a determination of the Parties’ respective rights and duties regarding the
10 Property and other assets amassed during the non-marital relationship; a determination of equity
11 gained in the Property; and damages for the domestic abuse perpetrated by Petitioner.
12 Who held what separate property rights going into the marriage, directly impacts
13 determinations by this Court as to characterization and division of property. If the facts are as
14 alleged by Respondent and there is found to be a partnership agreement, the amount of each
15 person’s separate property entering the marriage must be accounted for in awarding equity in the
16 home, the post-marriage but pre-Property transfer period, as well as the community interest. How
17 will this Court render a final judgment as to division of assets without knowing the parties’
18 respective separate property rights?
19 The filing of the Civil Action was necessary to obtain a determination of Respondent’s
20 rights to the pre-marriage value in the Property, and the post-marriage and pre-Property transfer
21 interest. The equity attributable to each of the applicable time periods will have to be determined
22 by Family Court after a determination of the rights in the Civil Action.
23 Consolidation will achieve the obvious goal of serving the jurisprudential goals of a just,
24 speedy, and inexpensive determination of both the Family Action and the Civil Action in a single
25 coordinated proceeding without duplication, and with the least consumption of increasingly
26 scarce judicial resources. Upon being served with the Civil Action in this matter, Petitioner
27 immediately served a document production request in the Family Action seeking documents
28 which support Respondent’s claims in the Civil Action. (See Decl. of Elizabeth Pappy, Ex. B.)
B URKE , W ILLIAMS & -3-
S ORENSEN , LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
SAN JOSE
PLAINTIFF’S MPA’S IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE
1 While the requests may be proper in the Family Action, they are duplicative and identical to the
2 discovery that will need to be conducted in the Palimony lawsuit.
3 The parties and major elements of their respective claims and defenses are already before
4 Judge Franchi, as evidenced by Petitioner’s recent document production request, issued in the
5 Family Action, but derived exclusively from the issues raised in the Civil Action. (See
6 “Declaration of Elizabeth M. Pappy In Support of Motion to Consolidate,” Exhibit B.) It is a
7 tacit admission that the two matters are inextricably intertwined.
8 II. LEGAL ARGUMENT
9 A. The Court Has the Power to Consolidate Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure
Section 1048
10
11 Code of Civil Procedure section 1048(a) provides:
12 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
13 or all matters in issue in the actions; it may order all the actions
consolidated and it may make such orders concerning proceedings
14 therein as may tend to avoid unnecessary costs or delay.
15 Code of Civil Procedure section 1048(a).1
16 The statute serves to enhance trial court efficiency, avoid unnecessary duplication of
17 evidence and procedures, and avoids the substantial danger of inconsistent adjudications or
18 different results if the two cases are tried in different courts before different judges and juries.
19 (See, Todd-Stenberg v. Dalkon Shield Claimants Trust (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 976, 978-979.)
20 The threshold showing for the moving party is low. “[A]ll that the moving party need show is
21 that the issues in each case are basically the same, and that ‘economy and convenience’ would be
22 served by a joint trial. (Jud Whitehead Heater Co. v. Obler (1952) 111 Cal.App.2d 861, 866-867
23 [holding that consolidation was proper even though different plaintiffs charged defendant with
24 misappropriation on separate occasions].) The granting or denial of the motion to consolidate
25 rests in the sound discretion of the trial court, and will not be reversed except upon a clear
26
1
27 The San Mateo County Superior Court is one court regardless of whether it is divided into a
Family branch and a Civil branch. (Glade v. Glade (1995) 38 Cal. App. 4th 1441, 1449.)
28 “Jurisdiction is therefore vested in that court, not in any particular judge or department.” (Id.)
B URKE , W ILLIAMS & -4-
S ORENSEN , LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
SAN JOSE
PLAINTIFF’S MPA’S IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE
1 showing of abuse of discretion. (Fenner v. Steinbaum (1955) 132 Cal.App.2d 509, 511.) Unless
2 otherwise provided in the order granting the motion to consolidate, the lowest numbered case in
3 the consolidated case is the lead case. (California Rules of Court, Rule 3.350.)
4 B. The Court Should Consolidate These Matters before Judge Franchi to
Promote Judicial Economy and to Allow the Parties to Avoid Unnecessary
5 and Duplicative Discovery
6 The Family Action and the Civil Action share a common subject matter. Respondent’s
7 Complaint filed in the Civil Action establishes the factual nexus and relatedness of the Civil
8 Action and Family Action. (See Decl. of Elizabeth M. Pappy, Ex. A.) This Complaint lays out
9 the ways in which determinations of separate and community property - particularly regarding
10 reimbursements owed to Respondent for her separate property contributions to the improvement
11 of a community asset - are relevant to the disposition of her Civil Action claims. The Family
12 Action cannot be resolved without all of the same exact property determinations of the nature of
13 parties’ interests in the Property and contributions.
14 The issue of Respondent’s reimbursement right for separate property contributions to
15 improvements of community property under the Civil Action is also crucial to the distribution of
16 marital assets in the dissolution action. Payments made for improvements to a property are
17 included in the definition of “contributions to the acquisitions of property” under California
18 Family Code Section 2640. (Fam. Code § 2640.) “In the division of the community estate under
19 this division, unless a party has made a written waiver of the right to reimbursement…the party
20 shall be reimbursed for the party’s contributions to the acquisition of the community property
21 estate to the extent that the party traces the contributions to a separate property source.” (Fam.
22 Code § 2640.) The “tracing” inquiry required to prove the source of the funds contributed by
23 Respondent to the improvement of the community asset will involve review of the exact same
24 financial documents for both the Civil Action and Family Action.
25 The related issue of addressing Petitioner’s claim that these contributions to the
26 improvement of the Property by Respondent were a “gift” will necessarily be addressed by the
27 court in the Family Action as well. “Under Section 2640, in case of dissolution of the marriage, a
28 party making a separate property contribution to the acquisition of the property is not presumed to
B URKE , W ILLIAMS & -5-
S ORENSEN , LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
SAN JOSE
PLAINTIFF’S MPA’S IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE
1 have made a gift unless it is shown that the parties agreed in writing that it was a gift, but is
2 entitled to reimbursement for the separate property contribution at dissolution of marriage. (In re
3 Marriage of Weaver (2005) 127 Cal. App. 4th 858, 866.) The evidence that would be dispositive
4 to this determination in the Civil Action is one and the same as the evidence that must be
5 presented for this determination in the Family Action.
6 Likewise, there can be no dispute that the Property is community property, and thus
7 properly addressed by the Family Court concerning matters of its disposition. The Property
8 became community property once the title was transferred to Respondent and Petitioner to hold
9 jointly as husband and wife. “For the purposes of division of property on dissolution of
10 marriage…property acquired by the parties during marriage in joint form…is presumed to be
11 community property.” (Fam. Code § 2640.)
12 The Family Action thus requires a final determination of the same issues as the Civil
13 Action in order for the Court to issue a final judgment on disposition of community assets. In In
14 re Marriage of McNeill (1984) 160 Cal.App.3d 548, 557 (disapproved of on other grounds by In
15 re Marriage of Fabian (1986) 41 Cal.3d 440), the Court consolidated a marital dissolution action
16 with a civil action in which the husband sued to set aside the deed to a residence that he had
17 deeded to the wife based on the wife’s fraud. The Court held that the two actions involved a
18 “common question of law or fact” and were properly consolidated. (Id. at 556-558.)
19 Given the obvious subject matter overlap between the Civil Action and the Family Action,
20 the factual allegations of the Civil Action are inseparable from the subject matter of the Family
21 Action. Both Actions raise sufficiently common issues concerning the separate versus
22 community nature of property, tracing, and the existence of alleged transmutations. Both Actions
23 require the same or similar discovery, including review of financial documents and depositions of
24 material witnesses, so that consolidation is in the best interest of all parties and of judicial
25 economy. This discovery should only occur once; the only way to ensure this is consolidation of
26 both Actions before Judge Franchi.
27 The supervision of discovery and all other pretrial proceedings in this litigation by a single
28 judge will inure to the benefit of all parties and ensure a just and efficient resolution of the pretrial
B URKE , W ILLIAMS & -6-
S ORENSEN , LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
SAN JOSE
PLAINTIFF’S MPA’S IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE
1 phase, at a considerable savings of judicial time and resources. (See Garden Grove Community
2 Church v. Pittsburgh-Des Moines Steel Co. (1983) 140 Cal.App.3d 251, 262 [the policy around a
3 similar statute permitting consolidation of arbitrations is to encourage the “efficient settling of
4 private disputes, judicial economy, and the avoidance of the contrary results.”].) Judge Franchi is
5 already familiar with the parties and the issues in dispute, and the factor of case administration
6 weighs in favor of consolidation of the Civil Action with the Family Action before Judge Franchi,
7 rather than burdening another Judge’s Docket. Consolidation would also serve to avoid
8 inconsistent resolution of the same legal or factual issues and preserve the parties’ limited
9 resources.
10 C. No Prejudice Will Result from Consolidation
11 Consolidation of the Family Action and Civil Action will not prejudice any party. The
12 relief sought in the Civil Action by Respondent must be resolved through a trial regardless of the
13 case manager. The determination of Petitioner’s obligation to Respondent vis-a-vis any resulting
14 judgment against Respondent will necessarily have to be resolved prior to resolution of any final
15 distribution in Family Court. The right to a jury trial can be preserved by ordering separate trials
16 of the Family Action and the Civil Action, while reducing the overall discovery and tracking the
17 cases together. Significantly, the settlement process could and would then take place together. It
18 is not possible to settle one without the other. The Petitioner and Respondent have one main
19 disputed asset, to wit, the jointly and community-owned Property to which Respondent
20 contributed separate property funds and Respondent’s separate property interest therein. It does
21 not make sense for the parties or the Court to case manage these matters separately given the
22 interrelation of the issues, and Respondent requests that they be consolidated for all purposes
23 other than trial.
24 ///
25 ///
26 ///
27 ///
28 ///
B URKE , W ILLIAMS & -7-
S ORENSEN , LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
SAN JOSE
PLAINTIFF’S MPA’S IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE
1 III. CONCLUSION
2 For all of the foregoing reasons, Respondent/Plaintiff Jacquelin Archie respectfully
3 requests that the Court consolidate the Family Action and the Civil Action.
4
Dated: December 15, 2021 BURKE, WILLIAMS & SORENSEN, LLP
5
6
7 By:
Elizabeth M. Pappy
8 Attorneys for Plaintiff
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
B URKE , W ILLIAMS & -8-
S ORENSEN , LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
SAN JOSE
PLAINTIFF’S MPA’S IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE
EXHIBIT 2
Electron ka lly
1 Elizabeth M. Pappy (SBN 157069) FILED
by Superior Cowt of California, Coonty of San l'Ylaleo
E-mail: epappy@bwslaw.com ON 12/17/2021 11:12 AM
2 BURKE, WILLIAMS & SORENSEN, LLP
By_ _,.,.,_~~,.,.,.~ ~=..___ _
60 South Market Street., Ste. 1000
3 Mountain View, CA 95113
Tel: 408.606.6300
4
Jessica Dayton (SBN 231698)
5 E-mail: jdayton@adzlaw.com
ADZ Law, LLP
6 2000 Alameda de las Pulgas, Ste. 161
San Mateo, CA 94403
7 Tel: 650.458.2300
8 Attorneys for Plaintiff
JACQUELIN ARCHIE
9
10 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
11 COUNTY OF SAN MATEO
12
13 JACQUELIN ARCHIE, Case No. 19FAM02618
14 Plaintiff, DECLARATION OF ELIZABETH M.
PAPPY IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S
15 v. MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE
16 WILLARD ARCHIE, and DOES 1 to 10, DATE:
02/25/2022
TIME: 9:00 a.m.
17 Defendants. DEPT.: 15
18
19 JACQUELIN ARCHIE, Case No. 21-CIV-05835
20 Plaintiff,
21 v.
Action Filed: October 29, 2021
22 WILLARD ARCHIE, and DOES 1 to 10,
23 Defendants.
24
25 I, Elizabeth M. Pappy, declare and state:
26 1. I am a partner with the law firm of Burke, Williams & Sorensen, LLP, counsel of
27 record for Plaintiff JACQUELIN ARCHIE (Respondent in the instant action). I am admitted to
28 practice law before all courts of the State of California. I have personal knowledge of the facts
B URKE , W ILLIAMS & OAK #4874-1919-3862 v1 -1-
S ORENSEN , LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
SAN JOSE
EISEN DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE
1 stated in my declaration, and if called upon as a witness, I could and would competently testify
2 thereto.
3 2. On October 29, 2021, my firm filed a civil action on behalf of Jacquelin Archie,
4 Archie v. Archie, et. al., San Mateo County Superior Court, Case No. 1-CIV-05835, a true and
5 correct copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A.
6 3. On December 1, 2021, Petitioner Willard Archie served “Petitioner’s Demand for
7 Production of Documents” on our offices in the instant Family Court case, a true and correct copy
8 of which is attached hereto as Exhibit B. These document production requests are derived
9 exclusively from issues raised in the Civil Action.
10 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the state of California that the
11 foregoing is true and correct.
12 Executed on this 15th day of December, 2021, at Fremont, California.
13
14
15 _____________________________
ELIZABETH M. PAPPY
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
B URKE , W ILLIAMS & OAK #4874-1919-3862 v1 -2-
S ORENSEN , LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
SAN JOSE
EISEN DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE
EXHIBIT A
1 IEiedr,oniic:a1lll y
Elizabeth M. Pappy (SBN 157069)
E-mail: epappy@bwslaw.com IFILE,D
b), S1,1i:ier"~rComt Qf C11ltfQm ,County of San M11teo
2 BURKE, WILLIAMS & SORENSEN, LLP ON 10/29/2021
60 South Market Street., Ste. 1000
1By_ ____.J=sL.-'fA,_,,·="
3 Mountain View, CA 95113 nlli=h=o=n,; - ·r-=in=i,'__ _
- B""'e=
y.,_,
Deputy ~lerfc
Tel: 408.606.6300
4
Jessica Dayton (SBN 231698)
5 E-mail: jdayton@adzlaw.com
ADZ Law, LLP
6 2000 Alameda de las Pulgas, Ste. 161
San Mateo, CA 94403
7 Tel: 650.458.2300
8 Attorneys for Plaintiff
JACQUELIN ARCHIE
9
10
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
11
COUNTY OF SAN MATEO
12
13
JACQUELIN ARCHIE, Case No. 21-CIV-05835
14
Plaintiff, COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
15
v.
16
WILLARD ARCHIE and DOES 1 to 10,
17
Defendants.
18
19
20 Plaintiff JACQUELIN ARCHIE hereby brings this Complaint against Defendant
21 WILLARD ARCHIE as follows:
22 GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
23 1. Plaintiff JACQUELIN ARCHIE (“Plaintiff”) is, and at all times mentioned herein,
24 was a resident of the County of San Mateo.
25 2. Defendant WILLARD ARCHIE is, and at all times mentioned herein, was a
26 resident of the County of San Mateo.
27 3. The Parties began a romantic relationship in 2012 and began living together in
28 2013, in real property commonly referred to as 55 Joyce Road Hillsborough, CA (the “Property”).
B URKE , W ILLIAMS & -1-
S ORENSEN , LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
SAN JOSE
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1 4. Plaintiff is ignorant of the true names and capacities, whether individual,
2 corporate, associate or otherwise, of Defendants named herein as Does 1 through 10, inclusive,
3 and therefore sues said Defendants by such fictitious names pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure
4 §474. Plaintiff will seek leave of Court to amend this Complaint to allege their true names and
5 capacities when she ascertains same.
6 5. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that each of the fictitiously-
7 named Defendants are responsible in some manner for the occurrences herein alleged and that her
8 injuries and damages were proximately caused thereby. As used herein, the word “Defendants”
9 shall mean Defendant Archie and Defendants Does 1 through 10, and each of them.
10 6. At all times mentioned herein, Defendants, and each of them, were the agents,
11 servants, employees, or alter egos of their co-Defendants, and each of them, and were joint
12 venturers with, or co-partners with, or sureties for their co-Defendants, and each of them, and
13 were at all times mentioned herein acting within the course and scope of said agency,
14 employment, and/or other relationship.
15 7. At the time the parties began residing together, Defendant was finalizing a divorce
16 and title to the Property was transferred as part of the divorce proceedings to Defendant Archie
17 and his parents on October 15, 2013. The estimated value of the Property at that time is $2.1
18 million.
19 8. In partnership and at the request of Defendant, Plaintiff began funding
20 improvements to the Property with the understanding that Defendant would have an equal
21 ownership interest in the Property going forward from 2013 and at the time Plaintiff began
22 funding improvements to the Property.
Preview
1 Elizabeth M. Pappy (SBN 157069) E-mail: epappy@bwslaw.com 2 BURKE, WILLIAMS & SORENSEN, LLP 60 South Market Street., Ste. 1000 3 Mountain View, CA 95113 12/22/2021 Tel: 408.606.6300 4 Jessica Dayton (SBN 231698) 5 E-mail: jdayton@adzlaw.com ADZ Law, LLP 6 2000 Alameda de las Pulgas, Ste. 161 San Mateo, CA 94403 7 Tel: 650.458.2300 8 Attorneys for Plaintiff JACQUELIN ARCHIE 9 10 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 11 COUNTY OF SAN MATEO 12 13 JACQUELIN ARCHIE, Case No. 21-CIV-05835 14 Plaintiff, PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF LODGING EXHIBITS IN SUPPORT OF MOTION 15 v. FOR CONSOLIDATION 16 WILLARD ARCHIE, and DOES 1 to 10, DATE: TIME: 17 Defendants. DEPT.: 18 Action Filed: October 29, 2021 19 20 /// 21 /// 22 /// 23 /// 24 /// 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// B URKE , W ILLIAMS & -1- S ORENSEN , LLP OAK #4891-5008-0518 v1 ATTORNEYS AT LAW SAN JOSE PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF LODGING EXHIBITS ISO MOTION FOR CONSOLIDATION I 1 TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR COUNSEL OF RECORD: 2 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Plaintiff JACQUELIN ARCHIE hereby lodges the 3 following exhibits in support of her Motion for Consolidation. 4 5 I Exhibit 1 Notice of Motion and Motion for Consolidation; Memorandum of Points and 6 Authorities in Support Thereof 7 Exhibit 2 Declaration of Elizabeth M. Pappy in Support of Motion for Consolidation 8 Exhibit 3 Proof of Service 9 10 Dated: December 21, 2021 BURKE, WILLIAMS & SORENSEN, LLP 11 12 By: 13 Elizabeth M. Pappy Attorneys for Plaintiff 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 B URKE , W ILLIAMS & -2- S ORENSEN , LLP OAK #4891-5008-0518 v1 ATTORNEYS AT LAW SAN JOSE PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF LODGING EXHIBITS ISO MOTION FOR CONSOLIDATION II EXHIBIT 1 Electronic.ally FILED by Superla, Coor! of California, Coont)' of San Maleo 1 Elizabeth M. Pappy (SBN 157069) ON 12/17/2021 11:12 AM E-mail: epappy@bwslaw.com 2 BURKE, WILLIAMS & SORENSEN, LLP 60 South Market Street., Ste. 1000 3 Mountain View, CA 95113 Tel: 408.606.6300 4 Jessica Dayton (SBN 231698) 5 E-mail: jdayton@adzlaw.com ADZ Law, LLP 6 2000 Alameda de las Pulgas, Ste. 161 San Mateo, CA 94403 7 Tel: 650.458.2300 8 Attorneys for Plaintiff JACQUELIN ARCHIE 9 10 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 11 COUNTY OF SAN MATEO 12 13 WILLARD ARCHIE, Case No. 19FAM02618 14 Petitioner, PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE 15 v. DATE: 02/25/2022 16 JACQUELIN ARCHIE, TIME: 9:00 a.m. DEPT.: 15 17 Respondent. 18 19 Full Caption of Second Case to be Consolidate 20 Case No. 21-CIV-05835 JACQUELIN ARCHIE, 21 Plaintiff, 22 v. Action Filed: October 29, 2021 23 WILLARD ARCHIE, and DOES 1 to 10, 24 Defendants. 25 26 27 /// 28 /// B URKE , W ILLIAMS & OAK #4877-6915-5590 v1 -1- S ORENSEN , LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW SAN JOSE PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE 1 TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR COUNSEL OF RECORD: 2 YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT on ___________, 20__ at _______. in 3 Department ___ of this Court, or as soon thereafter as the Court’s calendar permits, Plaintiff 4 JACQUELIN ARCHIE will move this Court to consolidate San Mateo County Superior Court 5 Case No. 21-CIV-05835 and Case No. 19FAM02618. 6 This motion is based on the grounds that good cause exists to consolidate these two 7 actions under Code of Civil Procedures section 1048(a) in that these actions involve common 8 questions of law or fact and that consolidation will avoid unnecessary costs, duplication of 9 evidence, and delay. 10 This motion will be based on this notice and motion, the memorandum of points and 11 authorities in support thereof, the declaration of Elizabeth Pappy, the files and records in these 12 actions, and any further evidence and argument that the Court may receive at or before the 13 hearing. 14 List of Parties Required by California Rule of Court 3.350(a)(1)(A) 15 As required by California Rule of Court 3.350(a)(1)(A), the following is a list of all names 16 parties in each of the cases, the names of those who have appeared, and the names of their 17 respective attorneys of record. 18 Parties in Lead Case 19FAM02618 19 # Name Type Counsel of Record 20 1. JACQUELIN ARCHIE Respondent Elizabeth M. Pappy (SBN 157069) E-mail: epappy@bwslaw.com 21 Burke, Williams & Sorensen, LLP 60 South Market Street., Ste. 1000 22 Mountain View, CA 95113 23 Tel: 408.606.6300 2. WILLARD ARCHIE Petitioner Kimberly E. Lewellen (SBN 243663) 24 E-mail: kim@lsflg.com 25 Lewellen Strebe and Hopper, P.C. 50 Osgood Place, Suite 308 26 San Francisco, CA 94133 Tel: (415) 818-1106 27 28 B URKE , W ILLIAMS & OAK #4877-6915-5590 v1 -2- S ORENSEN , LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW SAN JOSE PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE 1 Parties in Related Case 21-CIV-05835 2 3 # Name Type Counsel of Record 4 1. JACQUELIN ARCHIE Plaintiff Elizabeth M. Pappy (SBN 157069) E-mail: epappy@bwslaw.com 5 Burke, Williams & Sorensen, LLP 60 South Market Street., Ste. 1000 6 Mountain View, CA 95113 7 Tel: 408.606.6300 2. JACQUELIN ARCHIE Plaintiff Jessica Dayton (SBN 231698) 8 E-mail: jdayton@adzlaw.com ADZ Law, LLP 9 2000 Alameda de las Pulgas, Ste. 161 San Mateo, CA 94403 10 Tel: 650.458.2300 11 3. WILLARD ARCHIE Defendant Patrick T. Freeman 201 Spear Street, Suite 1100 12 San Francisco, CA 94105 pfreeman@vallemakoff.com 13 14 Dated: December 17, 2021 BURKE, WILLIAMS & SORENSEN, LLP 15 16 By: 17 Elizabeth M. Pappy Attorneys for Plaintiff 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 B URKE , W ILLIAMS & OAK #4877-6915-5590 v1 -3- S ORENSEN , LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW SAN JOSE PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE Electronically FILED by Superior Cawt of California, Coont)' of San Maleo 1 Elizabeth M. Pappy (SBN 157069) ON 12/17/2021 11:12 AM E-mail: epappy@bwslaw.com By_ _.,_,,,,~~~"'-='~.....,""-- - - 2 BURKE, WILLIAMS & SORENSEN, LLP 60 South Market Street., Ste. 1000 3 Mountain View, CA 95113 Tel: 408.606.6300 4 Jessica Dayton (SBN 231698) 5 E-mail: jdayton@adzlaw.com ADZ Law, LLP 6 2000 Alameda de las Pulgas, Ste. 161 San Mateo, CA 94403 7 Tel: 650.458.2300 8 Attorneys for Plaintiff JACQUELIN ARCHIE 9 10 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 11 COUNTY OF SAN MATEO 12 13 WILLARD ARCHIE, Case No. 19FAM02618 14 Petitioner, MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF 15 v. RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE 16 JACQUELIN ARCHIE, DATE: 02/25/2022 17 Respondent. TIME: 9:00 a.m. DEPT.: 15 18 19 Case No. 21-CIV-05835 JACQUELIN ARCHIE, 20 Plaintiff, 21 v. Action Filed: October 29, 2021 22 WILLARD ARCHIE, and DOES 1 to 10, 23 Defendants. 24 25 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// B URKE , W ILLIAMS & -1- S ORENSEN , LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW SAN JOSE PLAINTIFF’S MPA’S IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE 1 I. INTRODUCTION AND STATEMENT OF RELEVANT FACTS. 2 Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1048(a), Respondent Jacquelin Archie seeks 3 an order consolidating the related case of Archie v. Archie, et al., San Mateo County Superior 4 Court Case No. 21-CIV-05835 (the “Civil Action”), filed on October 29, 2021 into this action for 5 Case Management purposes only. This action was filed on November 6, 2019 (“Family Action”). 6 Consolidation of the two Actions is in the interests of judicial economy and will result in 7 substantial benefits for both the Court and the parties, given that Judge Franchi has been presiding 8 over the Family Action, which involves community property issues that are germane to the Civil 9 Action, and which likely cannot be resolved without resolution of the Civil Action. 10 Respondent Jacquelin Archie (“Respondent”) and Petitioner Willard Archie (“Petitioner”) 11 were in a romantic relationship and began living together at real property located at 55 Joyce 12 Road, Hillsborough, CA (“the Property”) in 2013. At this time Petitioner was finalizing a divorce 13 and title to the Property was transferred pursuant to those divorce proceedings to Petitioner and 14 his parents on October 15, 2013. 15 In partnership with and at the request of Petitioner, Respondent began funding 16 improvements to the Property in 2012 with the implicit agreement that Respondent would have an 17 equal ownership interest in the Property and the equity going forward. Respondent contributed in 18 excess of $500,000 of her own funds to Property improvements in furtherance of the Partnership 19 agreement, up to and after the Parties married on September 9, 2015. 20 In furtherance of the partnership agreement, title to the Property was transferred from 21 Petitioner and his parents, to Petitioner and Respondent as husband and wife on January 19, 2018. 22 The parties refinanced the Property in April of 2018 and June of 2019, each time in both of their 23 names. The Parties separated in or about November 2019. The value of the Property has 24 increased steadily over time, being valued at $2.1 million in 2013 when the title was transferred 25 to Petitioner and his parents; $3.2 million in 2018 at the time of title transfer to Respondent and 26 Petitioner, after Respondent’s improvements; and $3.3 million in November 2019 at the time of 27 the Parties’ separation. The Property currently has an estimated value of $4,282,500. 28 Petitioner inexplicably claims that the $500,000+ contributed to the improvement of the B URKE , W ILLIAMS & -2- S ORENSEN , LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW SAN JOSE PLAINTIFF’S MPA’S IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE 1 Property, which significantly increased the value, was a “gift”, and takes the position in the 2 Family Action that the Property is entirely his separate property but for the small portion he 3 agrees is community property. Petitioner advocates that all appreciation prior to the transfer is his 4 alone which is incorrect. 5 Respondent filed the Civil Action on October 29, 2021, seeking to recover equity earned 6 in the Property due to her substantial financial contributions and the agreements with Petitioner. 7 Respondent seeks to recover for breach of partnership agreement, breach of fiduciary duty, 8 domestic violence, and gender violence, among other causes of action. The relief requested by 9 Respondent includes a determination of the Parties’ respective rights and duties regarding the 10 Property and other assets amassed during the non-marital relationship; a determination of equity 11 gained in the Property; and damages for the domestic abuse perpetrated by Petitioner. 12 Who held what separate property rights going into the marriage, directly impacts 13 determinations by this Court as to characterization and division of property. If the facts are as 14 alleged by Respondent and there is found to be a partnership agreement, the amount of each 15 person’s separate property entering the marriage must be accounted for in awarding equity in the 16 home, the post-marriage but pre-Property transfer period, as well as the community interest. How 17 will this Court render a final judgment as to division of assets without knowing the parties’ 18 respective separate property rights? 19 The filing of the Civil Action was necessary to obtain a determination of Respondent’s 20 rights to the pre-marriage value in the Property, and the post-marriage and pre-Property transfer 21 interest. The equity attributable to each of the applicable time periods will have to be determined 22 by Family Court after a determination of the rights in the Civil Action. 23 Consolidation will achieve the obvious goal of serving the jurisprudential goals of a just, 24 speedy, and inexpensive determination of both the Family Action and the Civil Action in a single 25 coordinated proceeding without duplication, and with the least consumption of increasingly 26 scarce judicial resources. Upon being served with the Civil Action in this matter, Petitioner 27 immediately served a document production request in the Family Action seeking documents 28 which support Respondent’s claims in the Civil Action. (See Decl. of Elizabeth Pappy, Ex. B.) B URKE , W ILLIAMS & -3- S ORENSEN , LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW SAN JOSE PLAINTIFF’S MPA’S IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE 1 While the requests may be proper in the Family Action, they are duplicative and identical to the 2 discovery that will need to be conducted in the Palimony lawsuit. 3 The parties and major elements of their respective claims and defenses are already before 4 Judge Franchi, as evidenced by Petitioner’s recent document production request, issued in the 5 Family Action, but derived exclusively from the issues raised in the Civil Action. (See 6 “Declaration of Elizabeth M. Pappy In Support of Motion to Consolidate,” Exhibit B.) It is a 7 tacit admission that the two matters are inextricably intertwined. 8 II. LEGAL ARGUMENT 9 A. The Court Has the Power to Consolidate Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 1048 10 11 Code of Civil Procedure section 1048(a) provides: 12 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 13 or all matters in issue in the actions; it may order all the actions consolidated and it may make such orders concerning proceedings 14 therein as may tend to avoid unnecessary costs or delay. 15 Code of Civil Procedure section 1048(a).1 16 The statute serves to enhance trial court efficiency, avoid unnecessary duplication of 17 evidence and procedures, and avoids the substantial danger of inconsistent adjudications or 18 different results if the two cases are tried in different courts before different judges and juries. 19 (See, Todd-Stenberg v. Dalkon Shield Claimants Trust (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 976, 978-979.) 20 The threshold showing for the moving party is low. “[A]ll that the moving party need show is 21 that the issues in each case are basically the same, and that ‘economy and convenience’ would be 22 served by a joint trial. (Jud Whitehead Heater Co. v. Obler (1952) 111 Cal.App.2d 861, 866-867 23 [holding that consolidation was proper even though different plaintiffs charged defendant with 24 misappropriation on separate occasions].) The granting or denial of the motion to consolidate 25 rests in the sound discretion of the trial court, and will not be reversed except upon a clear 26 1 27 The San Mateo County Superior Court is one court regardless of whether it is divided into a Family branch and a Civil branch. (Glade v. Glade (1995) 38 Cal. App. 4th 1441, 1449.) 28 “Jurisdiction is therefore vested in that court, not in any particular judge or department.” (Id.) B URKE , W ILLIAMS & -4- S ORENSEN , LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW SAN JOSE PLAINTIFF’S MPA’S IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE 1 showing of abuse of discretion. (Fenner v. Steinbaum (1955) 132 Cal.App.2d 509, 511.) Unless 2 otherwise provided in the order granting the motion to consolidate, the lowest numbered case in 3 the consolidated case is the lead case. (California Rules of Court, Rule 3.350.) 4 B. The Court Should Consolidate These Matters before Judge Franchi to Promote Judicial Economy and to Allow the Parties to Avoid Unnecessary 5 and Duplicative Discovery 6 The Family Action and the Civil Action share a common subject matter. Respondent’s 7 Complaint filed in the Civil Action establishes the factual nexus and relatedness of the Civil 8 Action and Family Action. (See Decl. of Elizabeth M. Pappy, Ex. A.) This Complaint lays out 9 the ways in which determinations of separate and community property - particularly regarding 10 reimbursements owed to Respondent for her separate property contributions to the improvement 11 of a community asset - are relevant to the disposition of her Civil Action claims. The Family 12 Action cannot be resolved without all of the same exact property determinations of the nature of 13 parties’ interests in the Property and contributions. 14 The issue of Respondent’s reimbursement right for separate property contributions to 15 improvements of community property under the Civil Action is also crucial to the distribution of 16 marital assets in the dissolution action. Payments made for improvements to a property are 17 included in the definition of “contributions to the acquisitions of property” under California 18 Family Code Section 2640. (Fam. Code § 2640.) “In the division of the community estate under 19 this division, unless a party has made a written waiver of the right to reimbursement…the party 20 shall be reimbursed for the party’s contributions to the acquisition of the community property 21 estate to the extent that the party traces the contributions to a separate property source.” (Fam. 22 Code § 2640.) The “tracing” inquiry required to prove the source of the funds contributed by 23 Respondent to the improvement of the community asset will involve review of the exact same 24 financial documents for both the Civil Action and Family Action. 25 The related issue of addressing Petitioner’s claim that these contributions to the 26 improvement of the Property by Respondent were a “gift” will necessarily be addressed by the 27 court in the Family Action as well. “Under Section 2640, in case of dissolution of the marriage, a 28 party making a separate property contribution to the acquisition of the property is not presumed to B URKE , W ILLIAMS & -5- S ORENSEN , LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW SAN JOSE PLAINTIFF’S MPA’S IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE 1 have made a gift unless it is shown that the parties agreed in writing that it was a gift, but is 2 entitled to reimbursement for the separate property contribution at dissolution of marriage. (In re 3 Marriage of Weaver (2005) 127 Cal. App. 4th 858, 866.) The evidence that would be dispositive 4 to this determination in the Civil Action is one and the same as the evidence that must be 5 presented for this determination in the Family Action. 6 Likewise, there can be no dispute that the Property is community property, and thus 7 properly addressed by the Family Court concerning matters of its disposition. The Property 8 became community property once the title was transferred to Respondent and Petitioner to hold 9 jointly as husband and wife. “For the purposes of division of property on dissolution of 10 marriage…property acquired by the parties during marriage in joint form…is presumed to be 11 community property.” (Fam. Code § 2640.) 12 The Family Action thus requires a final determination of the same issues as the Civil 13 Action in order for the Court to issue a final judgment on disposition of community assets. In In 14 re Marriage of McNeill (1984) 160 Cal.App.3d 548, 557 (disapproved of on other grounds by In 15 re Marriage of Fabian (1986) 41 Cal.3d 440), the Court consolidated a marital dissolution action 16 with a civil action in which the husband sued to set aside the deed to a residence that he had 17 deeded to the wife based on the wife’s fraud. The Court held that the two actions involved a 18 “common question of law or fact” and were properly consolidated. (Id. at 556-558.) 19 Given the obvious subject matter overlap between the Civil Action and the Family Action, 20 the factual allegations of the Civil Action are inseparable from the subject matter of the Family 21 Action. Both Actions raise sufficiently common issues concerning the separate versus 22 community nature of property, tracing, and the existence of alleged transmutations. Both Actions 23 require the same or similar discovery, including review of financial documents and depositions of 24 material witnesses, so that consolidation is in the best interest of all parties and of judicial 25 economy. This discovery should only occur once; the only way to ensure this is consolidation of 26 both Actions before Judge Franchi. 27 The supervision of discovery and all other pretrial proceedings in this litigation by a single 28 judge will inure to the benefit of all parties and ensure a just and efficient resolution of the pretrial B URKE , W ILLIAMS & -6- S ORENSEN , LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW SAN JOSE PLAINTIFF’S MPA’S IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE 1 phase, at a considerable savings of judicial time and resources. (See Garden Grove Community 2 Church v. Pittsburgh-Des Moines Steel Co. (1983) 140 Cal.App.3d 251, 262 [the policy around a 3 similar statute permitting consolidation of arbitrations is to encourage the “efficient settling of 4 private disputes, judicial economy, and the avoidance of the contrary results.”].) Judge Franchi is 5 already familiar with the parties and the issues in dispute, and the factor of case administration 6 weighs in favor of consolidation of the Civil Action with the Family Action before Judge Franchi, 7 rather than burdening another Judge’s Docket. Consolidation would also serve to avoid 8 inconsistent resolution of the same legal or factual issues and preserve the parties’ limited 9 resources. 10 C. No Prejudice Will Result from Consolidation 11 Consolidation of the Family Action and Civil Action will not prejudice any party. The 12 relief sought in the Civil Action by Respondent must be resolved through a trial regardless of the 13 case manager. The determination of Petitioner’s obligation to Respondent vis-a-vis any resulting 14 judgment against Respondent will necessarily have to be resolved prior to resolution of any final 15 distribution in Family Court. The right to a jury trial can be preserved by ordering separate trials 16 of the Family Action and the Civil Action, while reducing the overall discovery and tracking the 17 cases together. Significantly, the settlement process could and would then take place together. It 18 is not possible to settle one without the other. The Petitioner and Respondent have one main 19 disputed asset, to wit, the jointly and community-owned Property to which Respondent 20 contributed separate property funds and Respondent’s separate property interest therein. It does 21 not make sense for the parties or the Court to case manage these matters separately given the 22 interrelation of the issues, and Respondent requests that they be consolidated for all purposes 23 other than trial. 24 /// 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// B URKE , W ILLIAMS & -7- S ORENSEN , LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW SAN JOSE PLAINTIFF’S MPA’S IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE 1 III. CONCLUSION 2 For all of the foregoing reasons, Respondent/Plaintiff Jacquelin Archie respectfully 3 requests that the Court consolidate the Family Action and the Civil Action. 4 Dated: December 15, 2021 BURKE, WILLIAMS & SORENSEN, LLP 5 6 7 By: Elizabeth M. Pappy 8 Attorneys for Plaintiff 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 B URKE , W ILLIAMS & -8- S ORENSEN , LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW SAN JOSE PLAINTIFF’S MPA’S IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE EXHIBIT 2 Electron ka lly 1 Elizabeth M. Pappy (SBN 157069) FILED by Superior Cowt of California, Coonty of San l'Ylaleo E-mail: epappy@bwslaw.com ON 12/17/2021 11:12 AM 2 BURKE, WILLIAMS & SORENSEN, LLP By_ _,.,.,_~~,.,.,.~ ~=..___ _ 60 South Market Street., Ste. 1000 3 Mountain View, CA 95113 Tel: 408.606.6300 4 Jessica Dayton (SBN 231698) 5 E-mail: jdayton@adzlaw.com ADZ Law, LLP 6 2000 Alameda de las Pulgas, Ste. 161 San Mateo, CA 94403 7 Tel: 650.458.2300 8 Attorneys for Plaintiff JACQUELIN ARCHIE 9 10 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 11 COUNTY OF SAN MATEO 12 13 JACQUELIN ARCHIE, Case No. 19FAM02618 14 Plaintiff, DECLARATION OF ELIZABETH M. PAPPY IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S 15 v. MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE 16 WILLARD ARCHIE, and DOES 1 to 10, DATE: 02/25/2022 TIME: 9:00 a.m. 17 Defendants. DEPT.: 15 18 19 JACQUELIN ARCHIE, Case No. 21-CIV-05835 20 Plaintiff, 21 v. Action Filed: October 29, 2021 22 WILLARD ARCHIE, and DOES 1 to 10, 23 Defendants. 24 25 I, Elizabeth M. Pappy, declare and state: 26 1. I am a partner with the law firm of Burke, Williams & Sorensen, LLP, counsel of 27 record for Plaintiff JACQUELIN ARCHIE (Respondent in the instant action). I am admitted to 28 practice law before all courts of the State of California. I have personal knowledge of the facts B URKE , W ILLIAMS & OAK #4874-1919-3862 v1 -1- S ORENSEN , LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW SAN JOSE EISEN DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE 1 stated in my declaration, and if called upon as a witness, I could and would competently testify 2 thereto. 3 2. On October 29, 2021, my firm filed a civil action on behalf of Jacquelin Archie, 4 Archie v. Archie, et. al., San Mateo County Superior Court, Case No. 1-CIV-05835, a true and 5 correct copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A. 6 3. On December 1, 2021, Petitioner Willard Archie served “Petitioner’s Demand for 7 Production of Documents” on our offices in the instant Family Court case, a true and correct copy 8 of which is attached hereto as Exhibit B. These document production requests are derived 9 exclusively from issues raised in the Civil Action. 10 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the state of California that the 11 foregoing is true and correct. 12 Executed on this 15th day of December, 2021, at Fremont, California. 13 14 15 _____________________________ ELIZABETH M. PAPPY 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 B URKE , W ILLIAMS & OAK #4874-1919-3862 v1 -2- S ORENSEN , LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW SAN JOSE EISEN DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE EXHIBIT A 1 IEiedr,oniic:a1lll y Elizabeth M. Pappy (SBN 157069) E-mail: epappy@bwslaw.com IFILE,D b), S1,1i:ier"~rComt Qf C11ltfQm ,County of San M11teo 2 BURKE, WILLIAMS & SORENSEN, LLP ON 10/29/2021 60 South Market Street., Ste. 1000 1By_ ____.J=sL.-'fA,_,,·=" 3 Mountain View, CA 95113 nlli=h=o=n,; - ·r-=in=i,'__ _ - B""'e= y.,_, Deputy ~lerfc Tel: 408.606.6300 4 Jessica Dayton (SBN 231698) 5 E-mail: jdayton@adzlaw.com ADZ Law, LLP 6 2000 Alameda de las Pulgas, Ste. 161 San Mateo, CA 94403 7 Tel: 650.458.2300 8 Attorneys for Plaintiff JACQUELIN ARCHIE 9 10 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 11 COUNTY OF SAN MATEO 12 13 JACQUELIN ARCHIE, Case No. 21-CIV-05835 14 Plaintiff, COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 15 v. 16 WILLARD ARCHIE and DOES 1 to 10, 17 Defendants. 18 19 20 Plaintiff JACQUELIN ARCHIE hereby brings this Complaint against Defendant 21 WILLARD ARCHIE as follows: 22 GENERAL ALLEGATIONS 23 1. Plaintiff JACQUELIN ARCHIE (“Plaintiff”) is, and at all times mentioned herein, 24 was a resident of the County of San Mateo. 25 2. Defendant WILLARD ARCHIE is, and at all times mentioned herein, was a 26 resident of the County of San Mateo. 27 3. The Parties began a romantic relationship in 2012 and began living together in 28 2013, in real property commonly referred to as 55 Joyce Road Hillsborough, CA (the “Property”). B URKE , W ILLIAMS & -1- S ORENSEN , LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW SAN JOSE COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 4. Plaintiff is ignorant of the true names and capacities, whether individual, 2 corporate, associate or otherwise, of Defendants named herein as Does 1 through 10, inclusive, 3 and therefore sues said Defendants by such fictitious names pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure 4 §474. Plaintiff will seek leave of Court to amend this Complaint to allege their true names and 5 capacities when she ascertains same. 6 5. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that each of the fictitiously- 7 named Defendants are responsible in some manner for the occurrences herein alleged and that her 8 injuries and damages were proximately caused thereby. As used herein, the word “Defendants” 9 shall mean Defendant Archie and Defendants Does 1 through 10, and each of them. 10 6. At all times mentioned herein, Defendants, and each of them, were the agents, 11 servants, employees, or alter egos of their co-Defendants, and each of them, and were joint 12 venturers with, or co-partners with, or sureties for their co-Defendants, and each of them, and 13 were at all times mentioned herein acting within the course and scope of said agency, 14 employment, and/or other relationship. 15 7. At the time the parties began residing together, Defendant was finalizing a divorce 16 and title to the Property was transferred as part of the divorce proceedings to Defendant Archie 17 and his parents on October 15, 2013. The estimated value of the Property at that time is $2.1 18 million. 19 8. In partnership and at the request of Defendant, Plaintiff began funding 20 improvements to the Property with the understanding that Defendant would have an equal 21 ownership interest in the Property going forward from 2013 and at the time Plaintiff began 22 funding improvements to the Property.