Motion to Consolidate/Join Cases in Minnesota

Background

“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; * * * and it may make such orders concerning proceedings therein as may tend to avoid unnecessary costs or delay.” (See In re Matter of Welfare of Q.T.B, No. C7-97-2093, C9-97-2094, at *1 (Minn. Ct. App. May 26, 1998).)

General Information for Complaints and Motions

“In authorizing consolidation, these courts have recognized the efficiency gains of consolidating proceedings that involve common parties, common evidence, and common witnesses.” (See Illinois Farmers Ins. Co. v. Glass Service Co. (2004) 683 N.W.2d 792, 806.)

“In addition, because in many of these cases there is a dispute over which one of several parties is responsible for damages, courts often cite the danger of inconsistent judgments as a justification for consolidation.” (See Illinois Farmers Ins. Co. v. Glass Service Co. (2004) 683 N.W.2d 792, 806.)

Standard of Review and Burdens of Proof

“The question of consolidation in any given case * * * rests in the sound discretion of the trial court.” (See In re Matter of Welfare of Q.T.B, No. C7-97-2093, C9-97-2094, at *1 (Minn. Ct. App. May 26, 1998).)

“While a trial court has broad discretion when considering consolidation, it must balance convenience and judicial economy against the right to a fair trial.” (See In Matter of the Welfare of D.E, No. C4-99-533, at *1 (Minn. Ct. App. Oct. 19, 1999).)

“A trial court's determination that consolidation is appropriate will not be reversed except on a showing of abuse of discretion.” (See Mn. Personal Injury Asbestos v. Keene (1992) 481 N.W.2d 24, 26.)

The Court’s Decisions

It is well settled that “when deciding whether to order consolidation, courts should consider the efficiencies of consolidation, the danger of inconsistent judgments if disputes are arbitrated separately, and the prejudice that parties may suffer as a result of consolidation.” (See Glass Serv. Co. v. Illinois Farmers Ins. Co., No. A06-1074, at *1 (Minn. Ct. App. June 26, 2007).)

It is also well settled that “when actions involving a common question of law or fact are consolidated for the sole purpose of conducting a joint trial (Rule 42.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure) no merger of the actions results, and each action retains its separate identity and no increase, diminution, or change in the fundamental rights or status of the respective litigants occurs by virtue of such consolidation for joint trial.” (See Simon v. Carroll (1954) 241 Minn. 211, 218.)