Group VI: Trials · Last amended March 1, 2019 · Last verified July 14, 2026
In one sentenceRule 42 lets a court combine related cases or issues for efficiency, or split a single case into separate trials for convenience, avoiding prejudice, or speeding things along, while still protecting each party’s right to a jury.
(a)Consolidation. If actions before the court involve a common question of law or fact, the court may:
(1)join for hearing or trial any or all matters at issue in the actions;
(2)consolidate the actions; or
(3)issue any other orders to avoid unnecessary cost or delay.
(b)Separate Trials. For convenience, to avoid prejudice, or to expedite and economize, the court may order a separate trial of one or more separate issues, claims, crossclaims, counterclaims, or third-party claims. When ordering a separate trial, the court must preserve any right to a jury trial.
Amendment History
Amended eff. 9-27-71; Amended eff. 3-1-19.
Plain-English Summary
Rule 42 gives courts two related tools for managing cases that overlap or that have grown unwieldy. When separate actions before the same court share a common question of law or fact, the court can join them for a hearing or trial, consolidate them outright, or issue whatever other order avoids needless cost or delay. This lets courts avoid repeating the same evidence or arguments across multiple lawsuits that turn on the same underlying dispute.
The rule also works in the opposite direction. Within a single case, a court can order separate trials of individual issues, claims, crossclaims, counterclaims, or third-party claims when doing so serves convenience, prevents prejudice to a party, or helps the case move faster and more economically. Whichever direction a court takes, Rule 42 requires it to protect any party’s right to a jury trial — splitting a case into pieces cannot be used to strip away a right that Rule 38 otherwise preserves.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can a court combine my case with another lawsuit involving the same issue?
Yes, if the actions share a common question of law or fact, the court can join them for hearing or trial, consolidate them, or issue another order to avoid unnecessary cost or delay.
Why would a court split a single case into separate trials?
To serve convenience, avoid prejudice to a party, or make the case move faster and more economically. A court might, for instance, try liability before damages.
If my case gets split into separate trials, do I lose my right to a jury?
No. Rule 42 requires the court to preserve any right to a jury trial when it orders separate trials.
Does consolidating cases under Rule 42 merge them into one lawsuit permanently?
Not necessarily. Consolidation can range from joining cases for a single hearing or trial to a fuller merger, and the court has discretion over how far to take it.
Who decides whether to consolidate or separate trials, the parties or the judge?
The judge. A party can ask for consolidation or separate trials by motion, but the decision rests with the court’s discretion.
Source & verification. Rule text, official Advisory Committee
Notes, and amendment history are reproduced verbatim from the Nevada Rules of Civil
Procedure, adopted by the Supreme Court of Nevada. Last verified July 14, 2026.
· Official source
Also known as:consolidation of cases Nevadaseparate trials civil casecombining lawsuitsbifurcated trialNRCP 42