(a) Consolidation. – Except as provided in subdivision (b)(2) of this section, when actions involving a common question of law or fact are pending in one division of the court, the judge may order a joint hearing or trial of any or all the matters in issue in the actions; the judge may order all the actions consolidated; and the judge may make such orders concerning proceedings therein as may tend to avoid unnecessary costs or delay. When actions involving a common question of law or fact are pending in both the superior and the district court of the same county, a judge of the superior court in which the action is pending may order all the actions consolidated, and the judge may make such orders concerning proceedings therein as may tend to avoid unnecessary costs or delay.
Rule 42.Consolidation; separate trials.
Last amended 2023 · Last verified July 3, 2026
In one sentenceRule 42 lets a court join related cases for a joint hearing or trial to save time and expense, and just as readily split claims or issues into separate trials when fairness, venue, or a statute calls for it.
Full Text of Rule 42
(b) Separate trials. –
(1) The court may in furtherance of convenience or to avoid prejudice and shall for considerations of venue upon timely motion 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.
(2) Upon motion of any party in an action that includes a claim commenced under Article 1G of Chapter 90 of the General Statutes involving a managed care entity as defined in G.S. 90-21.50, the court shall order separate discovery and a separate trial of any claim, cross-claim, counterclaim, or third-party claim against a physician or other medical provider.
(3) Upon motion of any party in an action in tort wherein the plaintiff seeks damages exceeding one hundred fifty thousand dollars ($150,000), the court shall order separate trials for the issue of liability and the issue of damages, unless the court for good cause shown orders a single trial. Evidence relating solely to compensatory damages shall not be admissible until the trier of fact has determined that the defendant is liable. The same trier of fact that tries the issues relating to liability shall try the issues relating to damages.
(4) Pursuant to G.S. 1-267.1, any facial challenge to the validity of an act of the General Assembly, other than a challenge to plans apportioning or redistricting State legislative or congressional districts, shall be heard by a three-judge panel in the Superior Court of Wake County if a claimant raises such a challenge in the claimant's complaint or amended complaint in any court in this State, or if such a challenge is raised by the defendant in the defendant's answer, responsive pleading, or within 30 days of filing the defendant's answer or responsive pleading. In that event, the court shall, on its own motion or the motion of a party, transfer that portion of the action challenging the validity of the act of the General Assembly to the Superior Court of Wake County for resolution by a three-judge panel if, after all other matters in the action have been resolved, a determination as to the facial validity of an act of the General Assembly must be made in order to completely resolve any matters in the case. The court in which the action originated shall maintain jurisdiction over all matters other than the challenge to the act's facial validity. For a motion filed under Rule 11 or Rule 12(b)(1) through (7), the original court shall rule on the motion, however, it may decline to rule on a motion that is based solely upon Rule 12(b)(6). If the original court declines to rule on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the motion shall be decided by the three-judge panel. The original court shall stay all matters that are contingent upon the outcome of the challenge to the act's facial validity pending a ruling on that challenge and until all appeal rights are exhausted. Once the three-judge panel has ruled and all appeal rights have been exhausted, the matter shall be transferred or remanded to the three-judge panel or the trial court in which the action originated for resolution of any outstanding matters, as appropriate.
Amendment History
(1967, c. 954, s. 1; 2001-446, s. 4.8; 2011-400, s. 2; 2014-100, s. 18B.16(c); 2016-125, 4th Ex. Sess., s. 23(a); 2023-134, s. 16.21(b).)
Plain-English Summary
Rule 42(a) lets a judge, when actions sharing a common question of law or fact are pending in the same court division, order a joint hearing or trial, consolidate the actions outright, or issue orders to avoid needless cost or delay; when such actions are pending in both superior and district court of the same county, a superior court judge may consolidate and manage them the same way.
Rule 42(b) covers separate trials: a court may, for convenience or to avoid prejudice, and must, for venue reasons on timely motion, order a separate trial of any claim, crossclaim, counterclaim, third-party claim, or issue. A separate trial is mandatory for a claim against a physician or other medical provider in a managed-care action under Article 1G of Chapter 90 of the General Statutes, and mandatory for bifurcated liability-and-damages trials in a tort action seeking more than $150,000 (absent good cause for a single trial), with damages evidence barred until liability is established and the same fact-finder trying both phases. Rule 42(b)(4) routes a facial challenge to a General Assembly act's constitutional validity to a three-judge panel of the Superior Court of Wake County once every other matter in the case is resolved, while the originating court keeps jurisdiction over everything else and, with limited exceptions for Rule 12(b)(6) motions, decides its own Rule 11 and Rule 12(b) motions along the way.
Frequently Asked Questions
What lets a court combine multiple lawsuits into one hearing or trial?
Rule 42(a) lets a judge consolidate actions that share a common question of law or fact, whether pending in the same division or split between superior and district court in the same county.
When must a court order separate trials for liability and damages?
In a tort action seeking more than $150,000, Rule 42(b)(3) requires bifurcated trials on liability and damages unless the court finds good cause for a single trial.
Where is a constitutional challenge to a state law decided?
Rule 42(b)(4) routes a facial challenge to a General Assembly act to a three-judge panel of the Superior Court of Wake County, once the rest of the case is resolved.
Source & verification. The rule text and history citation are reproduced verbatim from the
official North Carolina General Statutes, Chapter 1A (N.C. R. Civ. P. 42). Enacted by the North Carolina General Assembly (S.L. 1967, c. 954, codified at N.C.G.S. § 1A-1). The plain-English summary is original and written by us. Last verified July 3, 2026. ·
Official source
Also known as: consolidation of actionsseparate trialsbifurcated trial liability and damagesthree judge panel constitutional challengecommon question of law or fact joindermanaged care separate trial