common question of law or fact. In this case there is a request from all defendants that the matter be joined given the nearly identical issues involving the same plaintiff. In each case it would appear that the same or similar facts and issues of law will be raised and the same witnesses called. To date there remains no objection from any party. As such, judicial economy can only be served by the consolidation and, hence, this request is granted. As part of their filing both the plaintiff and defendant have made requests in differing forms to have the other's claims dismissed and judgment rendered in their favor. This court takes judicial notice of the fact that both the claim and counterclaim were commenced pursuant to UJCA article 18 referring to small claims. Because the purpose of small claims is to provide for a simplified and informal forum to settle disputes, in general, the parties are not bound by the statutory rules of procedure, pleading or evidence (UJCA 1804). Given the same, this court deems any such pretrial motion inappropriate in a small claims matter. It is suggested, however, that issues specific to the jurisdiction of the court in terms of the subject matter and the parties named do not go to the merits of the case and may be the subject of a pretrial motion or inquiry. In this case no such issues are raised and each party's motion is denied. Finally, this court denies the plaintiff's request for limited discovery demands as being out of context with the purpose and procedure of a small claim. Discovery in and of itself would create a situation where the matter could be delayed. It is the court's opinion that small claims were intended to be expeditious, as well as simplified and informal. The plaintiff's leave for limited discovery is denied.