Rule 53.Consolidation; Separate Trials

Current through June 1, 2026 · Last verified July 11, 2026

In one sentenceRule 53 lets a court combine related actions for a joint hearing or trial to save time and expense, and lets it split claims or issues into separate trials for convenience or to prevent prejudice, while preserving any right to a jury trial.

Full Text of Rule 53

Text sizeJump to: A. B.

A. JOINT HEARING OR TRIAL; CONSOLIDATION OF ACTIONS Upon motion of any party, when more than one action involving a common question of law or fact is pending before the court, the court may order a joint hearing or trial of any or all of the matters in issue in such actions; the court may order all such actions consolidated; and it may make such orders concerning proceedings therein as may tend to avoid unnecessary costs or delay.

B. 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 any claim, cross-claim, counterclaim, or of any separate issue or of any number of claims, cross-claims, counterclaims, or issues, always preserving inviolate the right of trial by jury as declared by the Oregon Constitution or as given by statute.

End

Amendment History

[CCP 12/2/78]

Plain-English Summary

Rule 53 gives the court two opposite tools for organizing trials. Section A lets it pull related cases together: when more than one pending action shares a common question of law or fact, the court, on a party’s motion, can order a joint hearing or trial of some or all the matters in issue, consolidate the actions outright, or issue whatever orders keep the combined proceedings from wasting time or money.

Section B runs the other direction. Even within a single case, the court can split out a claim, a cross-claim, a counterclaim, or any particular issue for its own separate trial — to serve convenience, avoid prejudice to a party, or promote a quicker and cheaper resolution. Whichever way the court organizes the trial, Rule 53 holds one thing fixed: the right to a jury trial guaranteed by the Oregon Constitution or a statute stays intact, no matter how the claims or issues get divided up.

Frequently Asked Questions

What does it take for a court to consolidate two Oregon lawsuits?

A motion from a party and a common question of law or fact between the pending actions. Once that showing is made, Rule 53 A gives the court discretion to order a joint hearing or trial, consolidate the actions outright, or issue other orders to avoid unnecessary costs or delay.

Can a court split a single case into separate trials on different issues?

Yes. Rule 53 B lets the court order a separate trial of any claim, cross-claim, counterclaim, or issue, or any number of them, when doing so serves convenience, avoids prejudice to a party, or promotes expedition and economy.

Does splitting a case into separate trials affect the right to a jury trial?

No. Rule 53 B requires the court to preserve, inviolate, the right to a jury trial as declared by the Oregon Constitution or given by statute, no matter how the claims or issues are divided among separate trials.

Does a party have to file a motion to get separate trials or consolidation?

Rule 53 A requires a motion from a party before the court can order a joint hearing, trial, or consolidation. Rule 53 B, covering separate trials, is not tied to a motion in the same way — it describes what the court may order when convenience, avoiding prejudice, or expedition and economy call for it.

Source & verification. The rule text is reproduced verbatim from the official Oregon Rules of Civil Procedure (ORCP 53). Prescribed by the Council on Court Procedures (ORS 1.735), subject to amendment, repeal, or supplementation by the Oregon Legislative Assembly. The plain-English summary is original and written by us. Last verified July 11, 2026. · Official source

Also known as: consolidating cases oregoncombine lawsuits oregonseparate trials oregon civil casebifurcated trial oregonjoint trial common question of law