Motion to Consolidate Oregon

Background

“The trial court may consolidate for purposes of convenience and economy; the trial court cannot consolidate if consolidation will lead to confusion and prejudice.” (See Weiss v. Northwest Accept. Corp. (1976) 274 Or. 343, 356.)

“The purpose is to permit the expeditious and economical disposition of various claims between the litigants in a single suit unless the issues are so unrelated that the consolidation of them would unduly complicate the trial.” (See Mack Trucks, Inc. v. Taylor (1961) 227 Or. 376, 386-87.)

General Information for Complaints and Motions

"Upon motion of any party, when more than one action involving a common question of law or fact is pending before the court, the court may order a joint hearing or trial of any or all of the matters in issue in such actions; the court may order all such actions consolidated; and it may make such orders concerning proceedings therein as may tend to avoid unnecessary costs or delay." (See Interstate Roofing v. Springville (2008) 217 Or. App. 412, 421-22.)

“Under that rule, when more than one action involving a common question of law or fact is pending before a court, the court may order all such actions consolidated or may order a joint trial.” (See Interstate Roofing v. Springville (2008) 217 Or. App. 412, 422.)

Standard of Review and Burdens of Proof

“Consolidation is governed by ORCP 53A, which permits it only on the motion of a party.” (See Atkeson v. Cupp (1984) 68 Or. App. 196, 198.))

“The question whether to grant separate trials or to consolidate civil cases for trial is another matter ordinarily left to the sound discretion of the trial judge, in the absence of some showing of abuse of discretion.” (See Rhodes v. Harwood (1977) 280 Or. 399, 404.)

The Court’s Decisions

It is well settled that “when the cause of action alleged in the complaint and the one alleged in the counterclaim have important questions in common the two can be conveniently and expeditiously tried together.” (See Benton Co. State Bank v. Nichols (1936) 153 Or. 73, 78-79.)

It is also well settled that “if there is a number of such claimants similarly situated, whose claims grow out of the identical transaction, then either the claimants or the claimee may have the matter brought into one suit in equity, invoking injunction, consolidation or any appropriate or available rule to bring it about and thereupon proceed to hear and determine the entire matter.” (See Logan v. Equitable Trust Co. (1934) 145 Or. 684, 695-96.)