Motion to Consolidate in Washington

Background

“CR 42(a) permits the court to consolidate actions involving common questions of law or fact and to make such orders concerning proceedings therein as may tend to avoid unnecessary costs or delay.” (See Lerner v. Cascade Designs, Inc., No. 81445-1-I, at *5 (Wash. Ct. App. Nov. 29, 2021).)

This rule “shall be construed and administered to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action.” (See Barchasch v. Gonzaga Univ., No. 36136-5-III, at *1 n.4 (Wash. Ct. App. Jan. 21, 2020).)

“This court disfavors piecemeal review.” (See Minehart v. Morning Star Boys Ranch, Inc. (2010) 156 Wash. App. 457, 462, 232 P.3d 591.)

“Piecemeal appeals of interlocutory orders must be avoided in the interests of speedy and economical disposition of judicial business.” (See id.)

General Information for Complaints and Motions

“In proper cases, the consolidation of actions pending in the superior court for the purpose of trial is to be commended.” (See Marcuson v. Nixon (1929) 152 Wn. 437, 439-40.)

“Courts in other states which have considered this matter are sharply divided; numerically, more courts find power in the court to order consolidation, primarily on the basis that if the court has the power to enforce an agreement to arbitrate, the power to regulate the method of enforcement follows.” (See S.K. Barnes, Inc. v. Valiquette (1979) 23 Wn. App. 702, 705.)

“Furthermore, in the interest of avoiding conflicting awards, saving time and expense of separate proceedings, consolidation is merited if none of the parties would be prejudiced thereby.” (See id.)

Standard of Review and Burdens of Proof

“Consolidation is within the discretion of the trial court and will be reversed only upon a showing of abuse and that the moving party was prejudiced.” (See King County Sheriff's Office v. Parmelee (2011) 162 Wn. App. 1028.)

“We review a decision to deny a continuance and consolidate for manifest abuse of discretion.” (See In re Dependency of V.R.R. (2006) 134 Wn. App. 573, 580-81, 141 P.3d 85; In re T.A.G.-F., No. 71509-7-I, at *14 (Wash. Ct. App. May 26, 2015).)

“Under a manifest abuse of discretion standard, [t]he trial court's decision will be affirmed unless no reasonable judge would have reached the same conclusion." (See In re Marriage of Landry (1985) 103 Wn.2d 807, 809-10, 699 P.2d 214 (1985); In re T.A.G.-F., No. 71509-7-I, at *14 (Wash. Ct. App. May 26, 2015).)

The Court’s Decisions

It is well settled that “consolidation for trial would reduce the total time needed to try the case and aid in the expedient administration of justice.” (See Marsland v. Bullitt Co. (1970) 3 Wn. App. 286, 296.)

It is also well settled that consolidation “is a procedural convenience designed to avoid multiplicity of actions and does not cause a case to lose its status as a procedural entity.” (See Rash v. Providence Health & Servs. (2014) 183 Wash. App. 612, 627.)