Motion to Consolidate in Virginia

What Is a Motion to Consolidate?

Understanding the Purpose and Significance of a Motion to Consolidate

“[T]wo actions being of the same nature, and between the same parties, [represent] a proper case for a consolidation of the actions, and [a] court might properly. . . order the cases to be consolidated and heard together.” (See Interstate Truck v. Ricketts, Record No. 3170-05-4, at *1 (Va. Ct. App. Aug. 1, 2006).)

“When causes are consolidated, the several suits or proceedings do not become one suit.” (See Deeds v. Gilmer (1934) 162 Va. 157, 258.)

"The parties…in one suit do not become parties to the other, and their rights still depend or turn on the pleadings, proof, and proceedings in the respective causes.” (See id.)

“The issues remain precisely as they were, and are to be determined exactly as if the cases had been heard separately.” (See id.)

“In short, the consolidation (in equity) merely operates to carry on together two separate suits supposed to involve identical issues, and is intended to expedite the hearing and diminish the expense." (See id.)

Procedural Steps Involved in Filing a Motion to Consolidate

Virginia Code subsection 8.01-267.1 contains the standards governing consolidation.

“On motion of any party, a circuit court may enter an order joining, coordinating, consolidating or transferring civil actions as provided in this chapter upon finding that:

Separate civil actions brought by six or more plaintiffs involve common questions of law or fact and arise out of the same transaction, occurrence or series of transactions or occurrences;
The common questions of law or fact predominate and are significant to the actions; and
The order (i) will promote the ends of justice and the just and efficient conduct and disposition of the actions, and (ii) is consistent with each party's right to due process of law, and (iii) does not prejudice each individual party's right to a fair and impartial resolution of each action. Factors to be considered by the court include, but are not limited to, (i) the nature of the common questions of law or fact; (ii) the convenience of the parties, witnesses and counsel; (iii) the relative stages of the actions and the work of counsel; (iv) the efficient utilization of judicial facilities and personnel; (v) the calendar of the courts; (vi) the likelihood and disadvantages of duplicative and inconsistent rulings, orders or judgments; (vii) the likelihood of prompt settlement of the actions without the entry of the order; and (viii) as to joint trials by jury, the likelihood of prejudice or confusion.”

(See Va. Code § 8.01-267.1.)

“The court may organize and manage the combined litigation and enter further orders consistent with the right of each party to a fair trial as may be appropriate to avoid unnecessary costs, duplicative litigation or delay and to assure fair and efficient conduct and resolution of the litigation, including orders that organize the parties into groups with like interest; appoint counsel to have lead responsibility for certain matters; allocate costs and attorney fees to separate issues into common questions that require treatment on a consolidated basis and individual cases that do not; and stay discovery on the issues that are not consolidated.” (See id.)

Additionally, pursuant to Virginia Code subsection 8.01-267.2, “for purposes of this chapter, actions shall be considered pending in the same circuit court when they have been (i) filed in that court, regardless of whether the defendant has been served with process, or (ii) properly transferred to that court.” (See Va. Code § 8.01-267.2.)

Discretion of the Court in Deciding a Motion to Consolidate

“Trial courts have the inherent authority to consolidate claims for trial and have been given specific authority to order separate trials in certain circumstances.” (See Emerald Point, LLC v. Hawkins (2017) 294 Va. 544, 560-61.)

“A decision to order separate trials or to consolidate claims for a single trial is a matter of procedure, left to the trial court's discretion.” (See id.)

“In making this decision, a trial court must be cautious to insure that separating or consolidating claims for trial does not prejudice the substantial rights of any party.” (See id.)

“When considering a request for separate trials, the trial court must also consider any resulting unnecessary delay, expense, or use of judicial resources that would flow from separate trials of the claims at issue.” (See id.)

“In reviewing the trial court's ruling regarding consolidation or separation of trials, we will not alter the ruling unless the trial court plainly abused its discretion.” (See id; Allstate Ins. Co. v. Wade (2003) 265 Va. 383, 392, 579 S.E.2d 180, 185.)

“A trial court by definition abuses its discretion when it makes an error of law.” (See Griffin v. Griffin, Record No. 1791-11-4, at *5 (Va. Ct. App. May 29, 2012); Shooltz v. Shooltz (1998) 27 Va. App. 264, 271, 498 S.E.2d 437, 441.)

Legal Precedents and Case Law on a Motion to Consolidate

It is well settled that “consolidation of cases requires consideration of common questions of law and fact, ability to manage the number of cases, and issues of convenience and efficiency for the parties and the judicial system.” (See In re Hopeman Brothers, Inc. (2002) 264 Va. 424, 426.)

It is also well settled that “the consolidation of cases for trial only does not operate as a merger of the different cases into one, but merely permits them to be tried together before the same justice or jury to avoid unnecessary delay and expense in the administration of justice. The causes of action remain distinct throughout such a trial and every legal right is preserved to the respective parties as fully as if the cases had been tried separately.” (See Clark v. Kimnach (1957) 198 Va. 737, 745.)