When practical, all actions involving substantially the same parties, or substantially the same subject matter, or substantially the same factual issues, whether pending simultaneously or not, shall be assigned to the same judge. Whenever such action is refiled, or a derivative or companion action is filed or refiled, or a defendant is reindicted on a previous charge, or is indicted on a subsequent charge while still under charges or serving a confinement or probated sentence on a previous action, or co-defendants are indicted separately, such actions shall be assigned to the judge to whom the original action was or is assigned. Generally, such actions will be assigned to the judge to whom the action with the lower action number is assigned.
Rule 3.2.Companion and Related Actions
Rule 3. ASSIGNMENT OF CASES AND ACTIONS · Not amended since adoption on record · Last verified July 17, 2026
In one sentenceRule 3.2 keeps related cases before one judge whenever practical: actions sharing substantially the same parties, subject matter, or factual issues, along with refiled or derivative actions, reindictments, and separately indicted co-defendants, are routed to the judge who had the original action or, absent that, to the judge with the lower action number.
Full Text of Rule 3.2
Plain-English Summary
Rule 3.2 protects the value of having one judge stay familiar with a set of related disputes. When practical, all actions involving substantially the same parties, substantially the same subject matter, or substantially the same factual issues go to the same judge, whether or not those actions are pending at the same time. That principle keeps a judge who has already learned the background of a dispute from having to hand it off to a colleague starting from zero.
The rule then lists the specific situations that trigger this companion-case assignment: an action that gets refiled, a derivative or companion action filed or refiled, a defendant reindicted on a charge already brought, a defendant indicted on a new charge while still facing charges or serving a sentence on an earlier one, and co-defendants who are indicted separately. In every one of those situations, the later action is assigned to the judge who had the original action.
Where there is no clear “original” action to point to, Rule 3.2 supplies a default: the related actions generally go to the judge assigned to the action carrying the lower action number.
Frequently Asked Questions
What three kinds of similarity can trigger companion-action assignment under Rule 3.2?
Substantially the same parties, substantially the same subject matter, or substantially the same factual issues.
Must the related actions be pending at the same time for Rule 3.2 to apply?
No. The rule applies “whether pending simultaneously or not.”
What happens if a defendant is reindicted on a charge already assigned to a judge?
The reindicted action is assigned to the judge to whom the previous action was or is assigned.
When co-defendants are indicted separately, which judge handles those cases?
The judge to whom the original action was or is assigned.
If there is no original action to trace, how does Rule 3.2 decide which judge keeps related actions?
Generally, such actions are assigned to the judge to whom the action with the lower action number is assigned.
Source & verification. Rule text and amendment history are
reproduced verbatim from the Uniform Superior Court Rules, published by the
Council of Superior Court Judges of Georgia. Last verified July 17, 2026.
· Official source
Also known as: georgia companion action same judge ruleuscr 3.2 related actions assignmentreindictment same judge georgia superior courtco-defendant case assignment georgia rulelower action number judge assignment georgia