Group VI: Trials · Last amended March 1, 2011 · Last verified July 15, 2026
Rule 42 was amended, effective March 1, 2011. Rule 42 is derived from Fed.R.Civ.P. 42. Rule 42 was amended, effective March 1, 2011, in response to the December 1, 2007, revision of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure. The language and organization of the rule were changed to make the rule more easily understood and to make style and terminology consistent throughout the rules.
Rule 42(a) addresses cases that overlap. When actions before the court involve a common question of law or fact, the court has three options: join the matters for a single hearing or trial, consolidate the actions outright, or issue whatever other order will avoid unnecessary cost or delay. That flexibility lets a court manage related litigation efficiently without forcing every case into a single rigid template — consolidation for some purposes does not necessarily mean the actions lose their separate identities altogether.
Rule 42(b) works in the other direction. For convenience or to avoid prejudice, the court can order a separate trial of one or more issues, claims, crossclaims, counterclaims, or third-party claims within a single action, splitting off a piece of the case rather than trying everything at once. The rule adds an important limit: whenever the court orders a separate trial, it must preserve any right to a jury trial that a party would otherwise have. Splitting up the case is a docket-management tool, not a way to narrow a party's trial rights.
Rule 42(a) allows consolidation, joint hearing or trial, or other coordinating orders whenever the actions before the court involve a common question of law or fact.
Not necessarily. The rule gives the court three separate options — joining matters for hearing or trial, consolidating the actions, or issuing another order to avoid unnecessary cost or delay — and the choice depends on what the situation calls for.
Rule 42(b) allows a separate trial of one or more issues, claims, crossclaims, counterclaims, or third-party claims for convenience or to avoid prejudice to a party.
Yes. Rule 42(b) requires the court to preserve any right to a jury trial when it orders a separate trial of an issue or claim.
No. Rule 42 gives that authority to the court itself; it does not condition consolidation or separate trials on the parties' agreement.