Group VI: Trials · Last amended 2017 · Last verified July 14, 2026
In one sentenceRule 42 lets the court join or consolidate civil actions that share a common question of law or fact, assigns any consolidation motion to the judge holding the oldest case involved, and separately authorizes separate trials of individual issues or claims while preserving any right to a jury.
(1)In General. If actions before the court involve a common question of law or fact, the court may:
(A)join for hearing or trial any or all matters at issue in the actions;
(B)consolidate the actions; or
(C)issue any other orders to avoid unnecessary costs or delay.
(2)Motion Judge. Any motion to consolidate 2 or more civil actions must be decided by the judge on whose calendar appears the oldest assigned case covered by the motion. If the motion is granted, all the consolidated cases must be placed on the calendar of the judge who granted the motion.
(b)SEPARATE TRIALS. For convenience, to avoid prejudice, or to expedite and economize, the court may order a separate trial of one or more separate issues, claims, crossclaims, counterclaims, or third-party claims. When ordering a separate trial, the court must preserve any right to a jury trial.
Comments
2017 Amendments:
This rule is substantially similar to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42, as amended in 2007, but maintains the following local distinctions: 1) subsection (a)(2) has been added to address responsibility for ruling on a motion to consolidate; and 2) the word “federal” has been omitted from section (b). Section (c), “Related Cases,” has been moved to Rule 40-I so that Rule 42 more closely aligns with its federal counterpart. This placement also conforms with the placement of similar provisions in United States District Court for the District of Columbia Local Civil Rule 40.5.
Comment:
Rule 42 differs from Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42 in several respects. Added to paragraph (a) is a provision that the judge on whose calendar appears the oldest assigned case will make the determination as to whether or not other related actions will be consolidated with the case on that judge's calendar. In paragraph (b) the phrase "an applicable statute" is substituted for "a statute of the United States." Also added is paragraph (c) which defines what is meant by "related cases." This substantially tracks the definition used by the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.
Plain-English Summary
When two or more pending cases turn on the same question of law or fact, Rule 42(a) gives the court several ways to handle the overlap instead of litigating the same ground twice. It can join the cases for a single hearing or trial on the shared issues, consolidate them into one action, or issue whatever order avoids unnecessary cost or delay. None of these outcomes is automatic — the rule hands the court a menu of tools and leaves the choice to the circumstances of the cases in front of it.
Rule 42(a)(2) answers a practical question that matters once a court has several judges handling related cases: whose motion is it? The rule assigns any motion to consolidate two or more civil actions to the judge on whose calendar the oldest of the assigned cases appears. If that judge grants the motion, every consolidated case then moves onto that judge's calendar, keeping the litigation in one place rather than splitting it across chambers.
Rule 42(b) works in the other direction, letting the court break a single case apart rather than combine several. For convenience, to avoid prejudice, or to expedite and economize the proceedings, the court can order a separate trial of one or more issues, claims, crossclaims, counterclaims, or third-party claims. Whenever it does, the rule requires the court to preserve any right to a jury trial that a party would otherwise have — separating the trial cannot be used as a backdoor way to take that right away.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can the court combine my case with a related case someone else filed?
Yes, if the actions involve a common question of law or fact. Rule 42(a)(1) lets the court join the cases for hearing or trial, consolidate them outright, or issue another order to avoid unnecessary cost or delay.
Who decides whether to consolidate cases when different judges are handling them?
Rule 42(a)(2) assigns that decision to the judge on whose calendar the oldest of the assigned cases appears. If the motion is granted, all the consolidated cases move to that judge's calendar.
Can the court split my case into separate trials on different issues?
Yes. Rule 42(b) allows the court to order a separate trial of one or more issues, claims, crossclaims, counterclaims, or third-party claims for convenience, to avoid prejudice, or to expedite and economize the proceedings.
If the court orders separate trials, do I lose my right to a jury?
No. Rule 42(b) specifically requires the court to preserve any right to a jury trial when it orders a separate trial of an issue or claim.
Does consolidating cases merge them into a single lawsuit permanently?
Rule 42(a) gives the court flexibility rather than a single fixed outcome — it can join cases for a hearing or trial on shared issues, or consolidate them, depending on what avoids unnecessary cost or delay in that instance.
Source & verification. Rule text and official Comments are
reproduced verbatim from the District of Columbia Superior Court Rules of Civil
Procedure, adopted by the Superior Court of the District of Columbia. Last verified July 14, 2026.
· Official source
Also known as:consolidating related cases dc superior courtmotion to consolidate which judge decidesseparate trial of claims dc rule 42joining cases common question of law dcpreserve jury trial separate trial