42.01 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.Separate Trials
Last verified July 1, 2026
In one sentenceRule 42 lets a court either combine related lawsuits into one hearing to save time and avoid conflicting results, or split a single lawsuit into separate trials when that makes the case easier to manage or fairer to the parties.
Full Text of Rule 42
42.02 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 one or any number of claims, cross-claims, counterclaims, or third-party claims, or of any separate issues.
Plain-English Summary
When two or more lawsuits share a common question of law or fact, a court does not have to handle them as isolated, disconnected matters. Rule 42 gives the court the power to bring related cases together. It can hold a joint hearing, run a joint trial, or formally consolidate the cases into one. The point is efficiency. Trying the same factual dispute twice, in front of two different juries, wastes everyone’s time and risks two different outcomes on the same facts.
The court also has discretion to shape how consolidated proceedings move forward. It can issue orders designed to cut unnecessary cost or delay, so parties are not stuck repeating discovery or motion practice that has already been resolved in a related case.
Rule 42 works in the opposite direction too. Sometimes a single lawsuit contains too much to try well in one sitting. It might bundle several claims, counterclaims, cross-claims, or third-party claims, or raise one issue that would be cleaner to resolve on its own. In those situations, the court can order separate trials. A judge might do this for convenience, to prevent one party from being unfairly prejudiced by evidence relevant to only one part of the case, or because splitting the trial moves things along faster and more economically.
Both consolidation and separate trials rest on the same idea: trial should be organized in whatever way best serves accuracy, fairness, and efficiency. The rule leaves that judgment to the court, based on the specifics of the cases in front of it.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can two unrelated lawsuits be consolidated because they were filed around the same time?
No. Rule 42.01 requires that the actions share a common question of law or fact before a court can order a joint hearing, joint trial, or consolidation. Filing dates alone are not enough.
If my case gets consolidated with another one, does that mean the cases become permanently merged into a single lawsuit?
Not necessarily. Consolidation under Rule 42.01 can mean a joint hearing or trial on shared issues while each case keeps its own identity, or it can mean the actions are consolidated more fully. The rule gives the court flexibility in how to combine the proceedings.
Who decides whether a trial gets split into separate parts, and can a party request it?
The court decides, under Rule 42.02. A party can ask the court to order separate trials, but the decision belongs to the judge, based on convenience, avoiding prejudice, or promoting a faster and more economical trial.
What kinds of claims can be tried separately under Rule 42.02?
The rule allows separate trials of any claim, cross-claim, counterclaim, or third-party claim, or of a separate issue within the case. It is not limited to splitting off an entire claim; a single disputed issue can be tried on its own.
Does consolidating cases under Rule 42 change which court has jurisdiction over each case?
Rule 42 addresses how proceedings are managed once actions are already pending before the court. It does not itself grant or change jurisdiction over any of the underlying actions.
Source & verification. The rule text and Advisory Committee Comments are reproduced verbatim from the
official Minnesota Rules of Civil Procedure (Minn. R. Civ. P. 42). Prescribed by the Supreme Court of Minnesota (Minn. Stat. § 480.051). The plain-English summary is original and written by us. Last verified July 1, 2026. ·
Official source
Also known as: Rule 42 MN consolidationseparate trials rule Minnesota