Motion to Consolidate in North Dakota

Background

“The Rules of Civil Procedure should be construed and administered to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action.” (See Praus v. Mack (2001) 626 N.W.2d 239, 245.)

“Consolidating litigation facilitates the efficient and expeditious resolution of disputes.” (See id.)

“The Rules liberally provide for joinder of claims, parties and actions.” (See id.)

General Information for Complaints and Motions

“Courts have been most likely to approve consolidation when they find that it serves the interests of justice.” (See Praus v. Mack (2001) 626 N.W.2d 239, 246.)

“Even though it is widely agreed that considerations of judicial economy favor consolidation, the benefits of efficiency can never be purchased at the cost of fairness.” (See id.)

“Courts have employed a balancing test to determine whether consolidation serves the interests of justice.” (See id.)

“In weighing the interests of convenience and economy against an ultimate goal of fairness and impartiality at trial, as well as individual justice, courts have found fairness must be paramount.” (See id.)

Standard of Review and Burdens of Proof

“There is broad judicial discretion in determining whether or not consolidation is proper and courts exercising that discretion will seldom be overruled.” (See Praus v. Mack (2001) 626 N.W.2d 239, 245.)

“A trial court abuses its discretion when it acts in an arbitrary, unreasonable, or unconscionable manner, or when its decision is not the product of a rational mental process leading to a reasoned determination.” (See Piatz v. Austin Mut. Ins. Co. (2002) 646 N.W.2d 681, 685.)

“An abuse of discretion by the trial court is never assumed, the party seeking relief has the burden to affirmatively establish it.” (See id.)

The Court’s Decisions

It is well settled that “there are no limitations on the kinds of actions that may be consolidated.” (See Praus v. Mack (2001) 626 N.W.2d 239, 246.)

It is also well settled that “it is not unusual for courts to consolidate indemnity claims with the underlying action. The reasons usually given as justification for consolidation of these actions are judicial economy, the risk of inconsistent results from two juries when the transactions and operative facts are closely intertwined, and the undue delay and expense caused by separate trials.” (See id.)