Motion to Consolidate in Montana

Understanding the Purpose and Significance of a Motion to Consolidate

“Montana Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a) provides that a district court may consolidate actions involving a common question of law or fact.” (See Tucker v. Tucker (2014) 326 P.3d 413, 416.)

“We have suggested that the purpose of consolidation under this rule is to permit trial convenience and economy in administration by avoiding unnecessary costs or delay.” (See Park Cnty. Stockgrowers Ass'n Inc. v. Mont. Dep't of Livestock (2014) 320 P.3d 467, 469; Means v. Mont. Power Co. (1981)191 Mont. 395, 401, 625 P.2d 32, 36.)

“Prior to adoption of the rule's federal counterpart, the U.S. Supreme Court observed that consolidation is permitted as a matter of convenience and economy in administration, but does not merge the suits into a single cause, or change the rights of the parties, or make those who are parties in one suit parties in another.” (See id; Johnson v. Manhattan R. Co. (1933) 289 U.S. 479, 496–97, 53 S.Ct. 721, 727–28, 77 L.Ed. 1331.)

“Montana's Rule 42(a) is identical to the corresponding federal rule. We have looked to the federal courts for guidance in our interpretation of our own Rule 42 in the past.” (See Yellowstone Co. v. Drew (2007) MT 130, ¶ 14, 337 Mont. 346, 160 P.3d 557; Park Cnty. Stockgrowers Ass'n Inc. v. Mont. Dep't of Livestock (2014) 320 P.3d 467, 470.)

Rules for Consolidation

Rule 42 of the Montana Rules for Civil Procedure governs consolidation and separate trials.

“If actions before the court involve a common question of law or fact, the court may:

1. join for hearing or trial any or all matters at issue in the actions;
2. consolidate the actions; or
3. issue any other orders to avoid unnecessary cost or delay.”

(See M.R. Civ. P. 42(a).)

“For convenience, to avoid prejudice, or to expedite and economize, the court may order a separate trial of one or more separate issues, claims, crossclaims, counterclaims, or third-party claims. When ordering a separate trial, the court must preserve any statutory or constitutional right to a jury trial.” (See M.R. Civ. P. 42(b).)

Discretion of the Court in Deciding a Motion to Consolidate

“Consolidation, particularly when denied, rests in the discretion of the court and will not be overturned absent a clear abuse of discretion.” (See St. George v. Boucher (1929), 84 Mont. 158, 274 P. 489; Tribby v. Northwestern Bank of Great Falls (1985) 217 Mont. 196, 208.)

“The test for abuse of discretion is whether the trial court acted arbitrarily without employment of conscientious judgment or exceeded the bounds of reason resulting in substantial injustice." (See Ward v. Van Dyke (In re A.P.V.W.) (2022) MT 159, 5; Jarvenpaa v. Glacier Electric Co-op (1998) 292 Mont. 118, 121.)

Legal Precedents and Case Law on a Motion to Consolidate

“The Ninth Circuit has noted, the law is clear that an act of consolidation does not affect any of the substantive rights of the parties.” (See J.G. Link & Co. v. Contl. Cas. Co. (1972) 470 F.2d 1133, 1138; Park Cnty. Stockgrowers Ass'n Inc. v. Mont. Dep't of Livestock (2014) 320 P.3d 467, 470.)

“Whenever the court is of the opinion that it may expedite its business and further the interests of the litigants, at the same time minimizing the expense upon the public and upon the litigants alike, the order of consolidation should be made, but manifestly the conditions then before the court will determine the exercise of the court's discretion.” (See St. George v. Boucher (1929) 84 Mont. 158, 162.)