Rule 42.Consolidation—Separate Trials—Change of Judge.
Last amended October 15, 2009 · Last verified July 6, 2026
In one sentenceRule 42 lets a court consolidate related cases or split a single case into separate trials, and gives each side in a case an automatic, no-questions-asked right to remove one judge and one master.
(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 the matters in issue in the actions; 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.
A motion requesting consolidation shall be filed in the court where the case is sought to be consolidated. The motion shall contain the name of every case sought to be consolidated. A notice of filing together with a copy of the motion shall be filed in all courts and served on all parties who would be affected by consolidation.
(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 Alaska Constitution and Statutes of Alaska.
(c)Change of Judge as a Matter of Right. In all courts of the state, a judge or master may be peremptorily challenged as follows:
(1)Nature of Proceedings. In an action pending in the Superior or District Courts, each side is entitled as a matter of right to a change of one judge and of one master. Two or more parties aligned on the same side of an action, whether or not consolidated, shall be treated as one side for purposes of the right to a change of judge, but the presiding judge may allow an additional change of judge to a party whose interests in the action are hostile or adverse to the interests of another party on the same side. A party wishing to exercise the right to change of judge shall file a pleading entitled “Notice of Change of Judge.” The notice may be signed by an attorney, it shall state the name of the judge to be changed, and it shall neither specify grounds nor be accompanied by an affidavit.
(2)Filing and Service. The notice of change of judge shall be filed and copies served on the parties in accordance with Rule 5, Alaska Rules of Civil Procedure.
(3)Timeliness. Failure to file a timely notice precludes change of judge as a matter of right. Notice of change of judge is timely if filed before the commencement of trial and within five days after notice that the case has been assigned to a specific judge. Where a party has been served or enters an action after the case has been assigned to a specific judge, a notice of change of judge shall also be timely if filed by the party before the commencement of trial and within five days after a party appears or files a pleading in the action. If a party has moved to disqualify a judge for cause within the time permitted for filing a notice of change of judge, such time is tolled for all parties and, if the motion to disqualify for cause is denied, a new five-day period runs from notice of the denial of the motion.
(4)Waiver. A party waives the right to change as a matter of right a judge who has been permanently assigned to the case by knowingly participating before that judge in:
(i)Any judicial proceeding which concerns the merits of the action and involves the consideration of evidence or of affidavits; or
(ii)A pretrial conference; or
(iii)The commencement of trial; or
(iv)If the parties agree upon a judge to whom the case is to be assigned. Such waiver is to apply only to the agreed upon judge.
(5)Assignment of Action. After a notice of change of judge is timely filed, the presiding judge shall immediately assign the matter to a new judge within that judicial district. Should that judge be challenged, the presiding judge shall continue to assign the case to new judges within the judicial district until all parties have exercised or waived their right to change of judge or until all superior court judges, or all district court judges, within the judicial district have been challenged peremptorily or for cause. Should all such judges in the district be disqualified, the presiding judge shall immediately notify the administrative director in writing and request that the administrative director obtain from the Chief Justice an order assigning the case to another judge.
If a judge to whom an action has been assigned later becomes unavailable because of death, illness, or other physical or legal incapacity, the parties shall be restored to their several positions and rights under this rule as they existed immediately before the assignment of the action to such judge.
Amendment History
(Adopted by SCO 5 October 9, 1959; amended by SCO 186 effective July 1, 1974; by SCO 258 effective November 15, 1976; by SCO 262 effective December 31, 1976; by SCO 465 effective June 1, 1981; by SCO 705 effective September 15, 1986; by SCO 716 effective September 15, 1986; by SCO 741 effective December 15, 1986; by SCO 877 effective July 15, 1988; by SCO 1153 effective July 15, 1994; by SCO 1196 effective July 15, 1995 and by SCO 1698 effective October 15, 2009)
Notes
Note: Ch. 80 SLA 2002 (HB 196), Section 1, adds new sections to AS 25.24 concerning the right of action for legal separation. According to Section 3 of the Act, AS 25.24.430 has the effect of amending Civil Rule 42(a) by requiring consolidation of subsequent divorce and annulment actions with legal separation actions filed by the same parties.
Plain-English Summary
When two or more pending cases share a common question of law or fact, the court can order a joint hearing or trial of some or all of the issues, consolidate the cases outright, or issue other orders to avoid unnecessary cost or delay; a motion asking for consolidation must name every case involved and be filed, with notice, in every court where an affected case is pending. For a different reason — convenience, avoiding prejudice, or speeding things up and saving money — the court can also split a single case into separate trials on particular claims or issues, as long as each side's right to a jury trial stays intact.
Each side in a Superior or District Court case gets an automatic right to change one judge and one master, without stating any reason, by filing a signed “Notice of Change of Judge” naming the judge to be replaced; parties aligned on the same side share that one right, though the presiding judge can allow an additional change if their interests turn out to be hostile to each other. The notice must be filed before trial starts and within five days of learning which judge has been assigned, and a pending motion to disqualify a judge for cause pauses that five-day clock for everyone until the motion is decided. A party gives up this automatic right by knowingly taking part, before the assigned judge, in a merits-related proceeding, a pretrial conference, or the start of trial, or by agreeing to that judge in the first place. Once a party files a timely notice, the presiding judge immediately reassigns the case to another judge in the district, and the cycle can repeat until every party has used or given up its right or every judge in the district has been challenged; if that happens, the presiding judge asks the administrative director to request a judge from outside the district. State law separately requires consolidating certain divorce and annulment actions with a related legal-separation action between the same parties.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can I remove a judge from my case without giving a reason?
Yes — each side gets one automatic change of judge (and one of a master) by filing a signed notice naming the judge, with no grounds or affidavit required, as long as it's filed before trial starts and within five days of learning the assignment.
Can two related lawsuits be combined into one trial?
Yes, if they share a common question of law or fact, the court can order a joint hearing or trial, or consolidate them outright, to avoid unnecessary cost or delay.
What happens if I take part in a pretrial conference before trying to change judges?
You waive your automatic right to change that judge, since knowingly participating in a pretrial conference (or a merits hearing, or the start of trial) before that judge gives up the right.
Source & verification. The rule text, Amendment History, and Notes are reproduced verbatim from the
official Alaska Rules of Civil Procedure (Alaska R. Civ. P. 42). Prescribed by the Supreme Court of Alaska (Alaska Const. art. IV, § 15). The plain-English summary is original and written by us. Last verified July 6, 2026. ·
Official source
Also known as:change of judge Alaska civil caseperemptory challenge judge Alaska ruleconsolidating lawsuits Alaskaseparate trials Alaska civil ruleAlaska R. Civ. P. 42