1

DISTRICT COURT 

Jefferson County, State of Colorado 

100 Jefferson County Parkway 

Golden, Colorado 80401 

Plaintiff: 

CROSSROADS COMMERCIAL CENTER, LTD., 

a Colorado limited liability partnership 

v. 

Defendant: 

GAROLD B. KRAFT (d.b.a. EXOTIC MOTORS), 

an individual 

▲ COURT USE ONLY ▲

Case Number: 

2010 CV 4988 

Div.: 4 Ctrm: 5C 

ORDER RE: MOTION FOR LEAVE TO CONSOLIDATE 

THIS MATTER comes before the Court on the Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to 

Consolidate (the “Motion”). The Court, after reviewing the pleadings, case file, and applicable 

rules and law hereby issues the following Order. 

I. BACKGROUND

 Case number 10CV4988 was initiated in Division 4 by the filing of a Complaint on 

October 20, 2010. According to the Plaintiff’s allegations, the Defendant (“Kraft”) owned 

certain office rental property (the “Property”) but then sold the Property to the Plaintiff (“CCC”). 

At the time of the sale, Kraft entered into three one-year lease agreements with CCC whereby 

Kraft would continue to occupy and lease from CCC three retail spaces in the Property. 

Approximately four months into the leases, Kraft vacated and abandoned the three leased spaces 

and ceased paying rent. The Complaint sets forth claims for relief for breach of contract and 

promissory estoppel as to each separate lease. 

 Case number 10CV5138, Bank of Choice v. Crossroads Commercial Center and 

Randolph Currier, was initiated in Division 3 by the filing of a Complaint on October 27, 2010. 

EFILED Document 

CO Jefferson County District Court 1st JD 

Filing Date: Apr 14 2011 11:37AM MDT 

Filing ID: 37040857 

Review Clerk: Beth B

Case 1:11-cv-02286-REB-CBS Document 6 Filed 08/31/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 4
2

According to the allegations in that case, Bank of Choice loaned $3,145,000 to CCC, and CCC 

has now defaulted on the promissory note payable to Bank of Choice. The Complaint seeks 

recovery from both CCC and Randolph Currier (“Currier”), who personally guaranteed the note. 

The Complaint also requests the appointment of a receiver in connection with a deed of trust that 

secured the promissory note. 

 CCC’s Answer and Counterclaims in 10CV5138 sets forth additional facts demonstrating 

that the two cases are interrelated. According to CCC’s allegations, Kraft had originally taken 

out a loan from Bank of Choice to enable him to purchase the Property in the first place. Kraft 

then defaulted on that loan. To avoid foreclosure on the Property, Kraft put the Property up for 

sale, and ultimately sold the Property to CCC, subject to the lease-back of the three retail spaces 

(the subject of case number 10CV4988). To purchase the Property, CCC borrowed $3,145,000 

from Bank of Choice, and it is this debt that CCC ultimately defaulted on in case number 

10CV5138. CCC complains that Bank of Choice never informed CCC of Kraft’s prior default 

with Bank of Choice, and asserts that Bank of Choice instructed Kraft to propose the lease-back 

arrangement to CCC in order to induce CCC into buying the Property and taking out the 

$3,145,000 loan from Bank of Choice. CCC’s original Counterclaims are all against Bank of 

Choice solely, and are for: (1) fraudulent misrepresentation, (2) negligent misrepresentation, (3) 

negligence, (4) negligent supervision, (5) breach of fiduciary duty, and (6) tortious interference 

with prospective business advantage. 

 On February 24, 2011 in case number 10CV5138, CCC filed a Motion to Amend 

Counterclaims and Add Parties, which seeks expansion of CCC’s counterclaims and addition of 

certain “counterclaim defendants” (a/k/a third party defendants), including Kraft. With regard to 

Kraft, the Amended Counterclaims assert that Bank of Choice and Kraft conspired to induce 

Case 1:11-cv-02286-REB-CBS Document 6 Filed 08/31/11 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 4
3

CCC into its loan agreement with Bank of Choice. The following amended counterclaims 

implicate Kraft: (1) deceit by misrepresentation, (2) deceit by concealment, (3) civil conspiracy, 

(4) negligent misrepresentation, and (6) breach of contract. Other amended counterclaims that 

implicate Bank of Choice and the other “counterclaim defendants” (but not Kraft) are: (5) 

negligence, (7) consumer protection, (8) COCCA, and (9) RICO. On April 13, 2011 Judge 

Tidball granted the Motion to Amend Counterclaims and Add Parties, thereby making Kraft a 

named third party defendant in case number 10CV5138. 

 On February 24, 2011 in case number 10CV4988, CCC filed the Motion at issue, which 

requests that case number 10CV4988 be merged into case number 10CV5138, on the grounds 

that both cases involve common issues of fact and law and both cases involve common parties. 

Kraft filed a Response on March 8, 2011, and the Plaintiff did not file a Reply. 

II. ANALYSIS

C.R.C.P. 42(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 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.” Consolidation is a matter 

of the trial court’s discretion. Nat’l Farmers Union Property & Cas. Co. v. Frackelton, 650 P.2d 

571, 572 (Colo. App. 1982). 

 After Judge Tidball granted the Motion to Amend Counterclaims and Add Parties in case 

number 10CV5138, CCC and Kraft became common parties across both cases. Moreover, there 

are considerable overlapping facts across the two cases. Therefore, the Court finds that judicial 

efficiency and economy would be furthered by consolidating the two cases. 

Case 1:11-cv-02286-REB-CBS Document 6 Filed 08/31/11 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 4
4

C.R.C.P. 121 § 1-8 provides that: “If consolidation is ordered, all subsequent filings shall 

be in the case first filed and all previous filings related to the consolidated cases placed together 

under that case number, unless otherwise ordered by the court.” In accordance with this rule and 

with First Judicial District Chief Judge Directive, case number 10CV5138 shall be merged into 

case number 10CV4988, all previous filings shall be placed under case number 10CV4988, and 

all subsequent filings shall be made in case number 10CV4988.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Plaintiff’s Motion is hereby GRANTED IN 

PART by the terms of this Order.

 Dated this 14th day of April, 2011. 

BY THE COURT: 

 

 _____________________________ 

 Tamara S. Russell 

 District Court Judge 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

 I hereby certify that on this 14th day of April, 2011, a true and correct copy of the 

foregoing document was served on all parties via e-filing with LexisNexis File & Serve. 

________________________ 

 Law Clerk, Division 4 

Case 1:11-cv-02286-REB-CBS Document 6 Filed 08/31/11 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 4