Motion to Consolidate in Nevada

Background

“Both NRCP 42(a) and its federal counterpart allow for consolidation of actions that involve a common question of law or fact. Under FRCP 42(a), which is identical to NRCP 42(a), federal district courts enjoy broad, but not unfettered, discretion in ordering consolidation. Additionally, this court has held that a district court exercises its own sound discretion in considering a motion to order a separate trial under NRCP 42(b).” (Marcuse v. Del Webb Communities (2007) 123 Nev. 278, 286.)

General Information for Complaints and Motions

Indeed, NRCP 42(a) and FRCP 42(a) state:

“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; it may order all the actions consolidated; and it may make such orders concerning proceedings therein as may tend to avoid unnecessary costs or delay.”

(Marcuse v. Del Webb Communities (2007) 123 Nev. 278, 286 n.16 citing id.)

Importantly, “EDCR 2.50(a)(1) provides that a motion to consolidate ‘two or more cases must be heard by the judge assigned to the case first commenced" and that such a motion is premature if filed before the answer in the case to be consolidated.’” (Long v. The Eighth Judicial Dist. Court of State (2021) 495 P.3d 529.)

Standard of Review and Burdens of Proof

The Nevada Supreme Court “has held that a district court exercises its own sound discretion in considering a motion to order a separate trial under NRCP 42(b).” (Marcuse v. Del Webb Communities (2007) 123 Nev. 278, 286.)

The Court’s Decision

“[A] single cause of action may not be split and separate actions maintained.” (Marcuse v. Del Webb Communities (2007) 123 Nev. 278, 287 n.21 citing Smith v. Hutchins (1977) 93 Nev. 431, 432.)