§42.7 Significant Authorities

• Jurisdiction: Washington

§42.7SIGNIFICANT AUTHORITIES

This section identifies significant Washington authority under CR 42 and select federal cases addressing Fed. R. Civ. P. 42.

(1)Consolidation under CR 42(a)

Consolidation is within the sound discretion of the trial court, and the trial court's determination to consolidate will be reversed only on a showing of abuse of discretion. W.R. Grace & Co.-Conn. v. State Dep't of Revenue,137 Wn.2d 580, 590, 973 P.2d 1011, cert, denied, 528 U.S. 950 (1999); King Cnty. Dep't of Adult & Juvenile Bet. v. Parmelee, 162 Wn.App. 337, 360,254 P.3d 927 (2011), review denied, 175 Wn.2d 1006 (2012), cert, denied, 133 S. Ct. 1732 (2013); Angelo v.Angelo,142 Wn.App. 622, 639, 175 P.3d 1096, review denied,164 Wn.2d 1017 (2008).

The CR 54(b) certification requirements do not necessarily apply in order to appeal judgment in a case consolidated under CR 42 when consolidation is not unlimited and the actions could not originally have been brought as separate suits. Angelo, 142 Wn.App. at 638-39.

An order for consolidation under CR 42(a) operates to merge the formerly separate actions into a new single action. Jeffery v. Weintraub,32 Wn.App. 536, 547, 648 P.2d 914 (1982).

At the conclusion of a consolidated action, the court has discretion to make a "multiple" or "single" award to the prevailing party of statutory attorney fees and taxable costs pursuant to RCW 4.84.080. Jeffery, 32 Wn.App. at 547-49.

A superior court for one county lacks the authority to consolidate a case that is pending before a superior court in a different county. Am. Mobile Homes of Wash., Inc. v. Seattle-First Nat'l Bank,115 Wn.2d 307, 312-14, 796P.2d1276 (1990).

Because CR 42(a) is similar to the parallel federal rule, federal cases regarding consolidation are followed when they are instructive and persuasive. Am. Mobile Homes, 115 Wn.2d at 313.

The trial court did not abuse its discretion in consolidating multiple tax refund actions pursuant to CR42(a) in which taxpayers sought refund of business and occupation taxes imposed on interstate manufacturers and sellers, based on a violation of the commerce clause. W.R. Grace, 137 Wn.2d at 590.

A party may not claim prejudice for refusal to consolidate when that party is entitled to intervene in the other action. Nat'l Bank of Wash, v. Equity Investors,86 Wn.2d 545, 561, 546P.2d440 (1976).

(2)Selected decisions underFed.R.Civ.P. 42(a)

Consolidation of three class and derivative suits by stockholders against 58 defendants was improper. Consolidation was prejudicial to...