Rule 42. Consolidation; Separate Trials

• Library: South Carolina Rules Annotated (SCBar) (2020 Ed.)

RULE 42. CONSOLIDATION; SEPARATE TRIALS

(a) Consolidation.

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 matters in issue in the action; 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.

(b) Separate Trials.

The court, in furtherance of convenience or to avoid prejudice, or when separate trials will be conducive to expedition and economy, may order a separate trial of any claim, cross-claim, counterclaim, or third-party claim, or of any separate issue or of any number of claims, cross-claims, counterclaims, third-party claims, or issues, always preserving inviolate the right of trial by jury as declared by the Constitution or as given by a statute of the State.

Notes:

This Rule 42 is substantially identical with the Federal Rule. Rule 42(b) as to ordering separate trials is similar to State procedure, under Code §15-27-20. Rule 42(a) as to consolidation of cases for trial is new to State procedure, but a valuable and needed addition. The parties and pleadings are not merged, and each action retains its own identity; but consolidation for trial can save much time and cost, as when all claims arise out of one auto accident, or several claims are based upon identical contracts.

Annotations Rule 42

42

Determining Legal v. Equitable

[Summary of analysis to determine the trial of legal and equitable issues in complaints and counterclaims.] Johnson v. S.C. National Bank, 292 S.C. 51, 55, 354 S.E.2d 895, 897 (1987).

Generally

The Court compared joinder under Rule 20 with consolidation. "[C]onsolidation may be ordered whenever actions involving a common question of law or fact are pending before the court. . . .the parties and pleadings are not merged and each action retains its own identity. . . .The merger of actions under consolidation is never so complete as to deprive any party of a substantial right." Whereas under Rule 20, "[a]ll persons may be joined in one action as defendants if there is asserted against them jointly, severally, or in the alternative, any right to relief in respect of or arising out of the same transaction, occurrence or series of transactions or occurrences and if any question of law or fact common to all defendants will arise in the action." Ellis v. Oliver, 307 S.C. 365, 367, 415 S.E.2d 400, 401 (1992).

"Under the SCRCP, Rules 23 and 42 regarding class action and consolidation accomplish the same effect as a bill of peace and therefore supplant it." Baughman v. American Telephone & Telegraph Co., 298 S.C. 127, 129, 378 S.E.2d 599, 601 (1989).

42(a)

Appeal

"An appellate court will not disturb a trial court's ruling on a motion to consolidate absent an abuse of discretion." Keels v. Pierce, 315 S.C. 339, 342, 433 S.E.2d 902, 904 (Ct. App. 1993).

Generally

"Under Rule 42(a), SCRCP, a trial judge may order the consolidation of actions involving a common question of law or fact. However, even before the enactment of Rule 42(a), cases could be tried together for convenience with the consent of all parties." Creighton v. Coligny Plaza Ltd. Partnership, 334 S.C. 96, 119-20, 512 S.E.2d 510, 522 (Ct. App. 1998).

"The parties and pleadings are not merged, and each action retains its own identity." Sarvghad v. Sitton Buick Co., 312 S.C. 429, 440 S.E.2d 894, 895 (Ct. App. 1994).

"Consolidation under Rule 42(a), SCRCP, may be ordered whenever actions involving a common question of law or fact are pending before the court. Under a consolidation order, the parties and the pleadings...