(a) Consolidation. When actions involving a common question of law or fact are pending before the court, in the same county or division or a different county or division, 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
Adopted December 1, 1959 · Last verified July 8, 2026
In one sentenceRule 42 lets the court consolidate cases that share a common question of law or fact into a joint hearing or trial, or sever claims and issues into separate trials, whichever serves the convenience of the parties and witnesses and the interests of justice.
Full Text of Rule 42
(b) Separate Trials. The court in furtherance of convenience or to avoid prejudice may order a separate trial in the county or division where the action is pending, or a different county or division, 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.
(c) Convenience and Justice. In making any order under this rule, the court shall give due regard to the convenience of parties and witnesses and the interests of justice.
Advisory Committee’s Notes & Reporter’s Notes
Reporter's Notes — December 1, 1959
This rule is similar to Federal Rule 42, but slight changes have been made and subdivision (c) has been added.
Rule 42(a) is one of trial convenience. It complements the liberal provisions for joinder of claims and parties. Where joinder could have been had but was not, the court can order a consolidated hearing. It is to be noted that an order for consolidation may apply to separate issues and not necessarily to entire cases. For instance, several actions arising out of the same accident may be consolidated for trial on the issue of liability with reservation of separate trials on damages.
Rule 42(b) is similarly for trial convenience. The broad provisions for joinder of claims and parties, for counterclaims, cross-claims, and third-party claims may produce an unwieldy package for trial. A discretionary power to separate them is a practical necessity for efficient administration.
Under this provision the court has discretion to isolate a single issue which may be decisive of the case and try that issue separately. For example, where the affirmative defense of a release is pleaded, a court might try that issue first, since it would save the time and expense of a trial if proved. More commonly, of course, the rule is applied in multiple claim situations.
The rule goes somewhat further than Field v. Lang, 89 Me. 454, 36 A. 984 (1897), which indicates a broad discretion in the presiding justice to order actions to be tried together, but suggests a distinction between a joint trial and a consolidation of the actions.
The rule includes an express provision that cases pending in different counties may be consolidated for trial in one county. R.S.1954, Chap. 113, Sec. 24 (amended in 1959) [14 M.R.S.A. § 508], now allows a change of venue for trial from one county to any other county, for good cause shown, but it does not appear commonly to have been utilized to provide a single trial of two or more actions brought in different counties on the same facts. It seems desirable that this be done and equally desirable that a separate trial of a claim or issue ordered under Rule 42(b) be held in a different county if more convenient.
Plain-English Summary
When two or more pending actions share a common question of law or fact, even if they sit in different counties or divisions, the court can order a joint hearing or trial of the shared matters, consolidate the actions entirely, or issue other orders to avoid unnecessary cost or delay. Going the other direction, the court can sever a claim, cross-claim, counterclaim, third-party claim, or a discrete issue for its own separate trial, in the same county or division or a different one, whenever doing so serves convenience or avoids prejudice to a party.
Whichever direction the court moves — combining cases or splitting them apart — the same standard governs: the convenience of the parties and witnesses and the interests of justice.
Frequently Asked Questions
When can a court consolidate two or more cases?
When the cases involve a common question of law or fact, even if they are pending in different counties or divisions; the court can order a joint hearing, a joint trial, or full consolidation.
Why would a court order separate trials instead of one combined trial?
To serve convenience or avoid prejudice to a party, by severing a claim, cross-claim, counterclaim, third-party claim, or a specific issue for its own trial.
What standard guides the court's decisions under Rule 42?
The convenience of the parties and witnesses and the interests of justice.
Source & verification. The rule text and Advisory Committee’s Notes / Reporter’s
Notes are reproduced verbatim from the official Maine Rules of Civil Procedure (Me. R. Civ. P. 42), prescribed by the
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine (4 M.R.S. § 8, the Rules Enabling Act). The plain-English summary is original and written by us. Last verified July 8, 2026. ·
Official source
Also known as: consolidation of actions Maineseverance of claimsseparate trials