Motion to Consolidate in New Jersey

What Is a Motion to Consolidate?

Background

“When actions involving a common question of law or fact arising out of the same transaction or series of transactions are pending in the Superior Court, the court on a party's or its own motion may order the actions consolidated.” (See Winzinger, Inc. v. Brennan Bros., Inc. (1983) 191 N.J. Super. 114, 117.)

“If the actions are not triable in the same county or vicinage, the order shall be made by the Assignment Judge of the county in which the venue is laid in the action first instituted on motion, his own initiative, or on certification of the matter to him by a judge of the Law or Chancery Division.” (See id.)

“The right to consolidate several actions is regulated by statute. Defendants may, at any time, move to consolidate several actions which are capable of being consolidated.” (See Thorn v. Langue (1939) 122 N.J.L. 342, 345.)

General Information for Complaints and Motions

“Our court rules and case law strive to avoid piecemeal decisions.” (See DiTrolio v. Antiles (1995) 142 N.J. 253, 267.) “For example, the entire controversy doctrine seeks to assure that all aspects of a legal dispute occur in a single lawsuit.” (See Olds v. Donnelly (1997) 150 N.J. 424, 431.)

“The goal is to promote judicial efficiency, assure fairness to all parties with a material interest in an action, and encourage the conclusive determination of a legal controversy.” (See Ajpacaja v. Pro-Line Builders, LLC, No. A-3699-18T2, at *7 (App. Div. Oct. 20, 2020).)

“Equity has a general jurisdiction to adjudicate ancillary and incidental matters.” (See Fleischer v. James Drug Stores, Inc. (1948) 1 N.J. 138, 150.) “It suffices if the matters to be adjudicated be germane to or grow out of the subject-matter of the equitable jurisdiction.” (See Ferrer v. Stahlwerk Annahutte Max Aicher GMBH, No. BER-C-323-13, at *20 (Ch. Div. June 9, 2014).)

Standard of Review and Burdens of Proof

“The decision to consolidate actions lies within the discretion of the trial court.” (See Kaselaan D'Angelo Assocs. v. Soffian (1996) 290 N.J.Super. 293 , 299-301, 675 A.2d 705; Dep't of Transp. v. PSC Res., Inc. (1978) 159 N.J.Super. 154 , 166, 387 A.2d 393.)

“Generally, a court's determination under Rule 4:50-1 warrants substantial deference and should not be reversed unless it results in a clear abuse of discretion.” (See Hous. Auth. of Morristown v. Little (1994) 135 N.J. 274, 283.)

“An abuse of discretion occurs when a decision is made without a rational explanation, inexplicably departs from established policies, or rests on an impermissible basis.” (See U.S. Nat'l Bank Ass'n v. Guillaume (2012) 209 N.J. 449, 467-68; City Nat'l Bank of N.J. v. Hodge, No. A-1483-13T4, at *4 (App. Div. Apr. 15, 2015).)

“Under a misapplication of discretion standard, the lower court's decision should not be set aside unless the lower court pursued a manifestly unjust course.” (See Union County v. Artaki (2007) 392 N.J. Super. 141, 149.)

“The rules are to be construed to secure a just determination, simplicity in procedure, fairness in administration and the elimination of unjustifiable expense and delay.” (See Ferrer v. Stahlwerk Annahutte Max Aicher GMBH, No. BER-C-323-13, at *21 (Ch. Div. June 9, 2014).)

Meet and Confer

“The rule requires attorneys to confer and exchange pretrial information including, [a]ny in limine or trial motions intended to be made at the commencement of trial, with supporting memoranda.” (See Lauckhardt v. Jeges, No. A-1970-13T4, at *11-12 (App. Div. Oct. 20, 2015).)

The Court’s Decisions

It is well settled that “Rule 4:38-1(c)(1) requires that all papers filed in consolidated action include the caption and docket number of each separate action, that of the earliest instituted action to be listed first.” (See Molnar v. Hedden (1994) 138 N.J. 96, 99.)

It is also well settled that “R. 4:38-1 makes no express provision for a change of venue, merely stating in sub-paragraph (e) that [w]here actions in different venues or courts are consolidated, the order of consolidation shall state the venue in which the consolidated action or actions ought to be tried. . . .” (See Winzinger, Inc. v. Brennan Bros., Inc. (1983) 191 N.J. Super. 114, 119.)

Documents for Motion to Consolidate in New Jersey

Sort By

Gerges Mariam Vs New Jersey Transit document preview

Order To Transfer To Another Venue - PARTIAL by Judge VENABLE, SHEILA

5 pages

HUD-L-001617-24 04/25/2024 Pg 1 of 5 Trans ID: LCV20241083291 MATTHEW J. PLATKIN ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NEW JERSEY 124 Halsey Street PO Box 45029 PARTIAL Newark, NJ 07101 Attorney for Defendant, New Jersey Transit, Daniel Georges, and Jude Francois By: Tanner Kingston (332102020) Deputy Attorney General 973-648-7811 tanner.kingston@law.njoag.gov DOL# 23-00435 FERNANDO PLUAS and ALEXANDRO SUP…