(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.
Rule 42.Consolidation--Separate trials
Current through July 1, 2026 · Last verified July 13, 2026
In one sentenceTrial Rule 42 lets a court combine related pending cases — including, within limits, cases pending in different Indiana courts — for hearing, trial, discovery, or pretrial proceedings, and lets it split claims or issues within a single case into separate trials, all while preserving the right to a jury.
Full Text of Rule 42
(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.
(C) Submission to Jury in Stages. The Court upon its own motion or the motion of any party for good cause shown may allow the case to be tried and submitted to the jury in stages or segments including, but not limited to, bifurcation of claims or issues of compensatory and punitive damages.
(D) Actions Pending in Different Courts. When civil actions involving a common question of law or fact are pending in different courts, a party to any of the actions may, by motion, request consolidation of those actions for the purpose of discovery and any pre-trial proceedings. Such motion may only be filed in the court having jurisdiction of the action with the earliest filing date and the court shall enter an order of consolidation for the purpose of discovery and any pre-trial proceedings unless good cause to the contrary is shown and found by the court to exist. In the event two or more actions have the same earliest filing date, the motion may be filed only in the court having the lowest court identifier number under Administrative Rule 8(B)(1), which court shall be considered as having the action with the earliest filing date. Upon completion of discovery and any pre-trial proceedings, each case which has been subject to the order of consolidation shall be ordered returned to the court in which it was pending at the time the order of con- solidation was made unless, after notice to all parties and a hearing, the court finds that the action involves unusual or complicated issues of fact or law or involves a substantial question of law of great public importance. In the event the court makes such a finding, it may enter an order of consolidation for the purpose of trial. Except for cause pursuant to IC 34-35-1-1, the right to a change of venue in any action consolidated under this rule shall be suspended dur- ing the period of consolidation. Such right shall be reinstated on entry of an order remanding the action to the court in which it was pending at the time of consolidation and the time pre- scribed for the filing of a motion for change of venue shall be deemed tolled during the period of suspension. Nothing in this Rule shall restrict the equitable discretion of the court having the earliest filed action to dismiss or stay that action. If such an order is entered, that court shall no longer be considered the court in which is pending the action with the earliest filing date for purposes of this Rule. This Subsection (D) shall not apply to actions pending in courts of limited jurisdiction and no such action may be consolidated with another under the provisions of this Subsection (D).
Amendment History
This rule’s current text took effect January 1, 2008. For the full history of earlier amendments and adoption orders, see the Indiana Office of Court Services.
Plain-English Summary
Rule 42(A) lets a court consolidate cases that share a common question of law or fact: it can order a joint hearing or trial of some or all of the issues, consolidate the actions outright, or issue whatever management orders help avoid unnecessary cost or delay. Rule 42(B) works in the opposite direction within a single case, letting the court order separate trials of any claim, cross-claim, counterclaim, third-party claim, or particular issue — for convenience, to avoid prejudice to a party, or because separating the issues will save time and expense — as long as the right to a jury trial stays intact. Rule 42(C) builds on that by allowing the court, on its own initiative or a party’s motion for good cause, to try a case and submit it to the jury in stages, such as splitting liability from compensatory and punitive damages.
Rule 42(D) covers a distinct problem: cases sharing a common question of law or fact that are pending in different Indiana courts. A party can move to consolidate those cases for discovery and pretrial proceedings, but the motion has to be filed in the court where the earliest-filed case is pending (with a tiebreaker based on court identifier number if two cases were filed the same day), and the court must order that consolidation unless good cause is shown against it. Once discovery and pretrial work wrap up, the cases normally go back to their home courts — unless, after notice and a hearing, the court finds the case involves unusually complicated issues or a substantial question of law of major public importance, in which case it can keep the cases consolidated through trial. While cases are consolidated under this provision, a party’s right to an automatic change of venue is put on hold (apart from certain statutory exceptions), then picks back up once the cases are sent home, with the filing deadline for a venue change paused in the meantime. The court where the earliest case is pending keeps its normal power to dismiss or stay that case on its own, and if it does, some other court becomes the “earliest” court going forward. This multi-court consolidation option does not apply to courts of limited jurisdiction, and their cases cannot be pulled into it.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the difference between consolidating cases and joining claims or parties in one lawsuit?
Joinder under rules like Rule 18 or Rule 20 combines claims or parties within a single lawsuit from the start. Consolidation under Rule 42 takes separate, already-pending actions that share a common question of law or fact and manages or tries them together, while each action generally keeps its own identity.
If my case gets consolidated with another, do I lose my own trial?
Not necessarily. Consolidation can be limited to a hearing, to discovery and pretrial proceedings, to a single issue, or to the full trial, depending on what the court orders. And Rule 42(B) makes clear that any right to trial by jury has to be preserved regardless of how cases are consolidated or separated.
Can cases from two different Indiana courts be consolidated?
Yes, under Rule 42(D), when the cases share a common question of law or fact. A party moves to consolidate them for discovery and pretrial proceedings, and the court must grant it unless good cause is shown not to.
Which court decides a motion to consolidate cases pending in different courts?
The motion can only be filed in the court where the case with the earliest filing date is pending. If two cases were filed on the same date, the tie is broken by the lowest court identifier number under the applicable administrative rule.
Does consolidating my case affect my right to ask for a change of venue?
Yes, temporarily. Rule 42(D) suspends the right to an automatic change of venue while the consolidation for discovery and pretrial is in effect, apart from limited statutory exceptions, and revives that right — with the filing deadline tolled in the meantime — once the case is sent back to its original court.
Can the court split my trial into phases, like liability and damages?
Yes. Rule 42(C) lets the court, on its own motion or a party’s motion for good cause, try the case and submit it to the jury in stages, including separating liability from compensatory and punitive damages.
Can a judge order cases consolidated without either side asking?
For cases pending in the same court, Rule 42(A) does not require a motion; the court can order consolidation on its own. Cases pending in different courts under Rule 42(D) are consolidated by motion of a party.
Source & verification. The rule text is reproduced verbatim from the
official Indiana Rules of Trial Procedure (T.R. 42). Prescribed by the Supreme Court of Indiana, under its inherent constitutional rulemaking power (reaffirmed by Ind. Code 34-8-1-1 and 34-8-2-1); originally enacted by the Indiana General Assembly in 1969. The plain-English summary is original and written by us. Last verified July 13, 2026. ·
Official source
Also known as: consolidate cases indianaseparate trials indiana civil casebifurcated trial indianacombine lawsuits in different indiana courtsconsolidation for discovery indianatrial rule 42