(a) Consolidation of actions. 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.Consolidation — Separate Trials
Part VI: Trials · Last amended 1969 · Last verified July 16, 2026
In one sentenceRule 15-6-42 lets a court combine cases sharing a common question of law or fact into a joint hearing, trial, or consolidated action, and lets it order a separate trial of any claim or issue for convenience, to avoid prejudice, or for efficiency, always preserving the jury trial right.
Full Text of Rule 15-6-42
(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 third-party claim, or of any separate issue or of any number of claims, cross-claims, counterclaims, third-party claims, or issues, always preserving inviolate the right of trial by jury as declared by the state or federal Constitution or as given by a statute.
Plain-English Summary
Rule 15-6-42 gives a court two related tools for managing related cases. When separate actions pending before the court share a common question of law or fact, the court may order a joint hearing or trial of some or all the matters at issue in them, or go further and consolidate the actions into one, issuing whatever orders along the way help avoid unnecessary cost or delay.
The rule also runs in the opposite direction. For convenience, to avoid prejudice, or because separate trials would be quicker and cheaper, the court may split off a separate trial for any claim, cross-claim, counterclaim, or third-party claim, or for any particular issue, or for any number of them. Whatever the court does under this rule, it must always keep the right to a jury trial intact, whether that right comes from the state or federal constitution or from a statute.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can a South Dakota court combine my case with another one that involves the same facts?
Yes. Rule 15-6-42 lets the court order a joint hearing, a joint trial, or full consolidation of actions that share a common question of law or fact.
Why might a South Dakota court order separate trials within one case?
Rule 15-6-42 allows separate trials for convenience, to avoid prejudice, or when doing so would be quicker and less costly than trying everything together.
Can a court split off just one issue for its own trial?
Yes. Rule 15-6-42 lets the court order a separate trial of any claim, cross-claim, counterclaim, third-party claim, or any particular issue.
Does ordering separate trials take away my right to a jury?
No. Rule 15-6-42 requires the court to always preserve the right to a jury trial as given by the state or federal constitution or a statute, no matter how it splits up the trials.
Does consolidating cases under this rule merge them permanently into one case?
Not necessarily. Rule 15-6-42 gives the court the option to fully consolidate the actions, but it can also choose the lesser step of a joint hearing or joint trial without merging the cases outright.
Amendment History
(a)SDC 1939 & Supp 1960, § 33.0917; SD RCP, Rule 42 (a), as adopted by Sup. Ct. Order March 29, 1966, effective July 1, 1966.
(b)SDC 1939 & Supp 1960, § 33.0917; SD RCP, Rule 42 (b), as adopted by Sup. Ct. Order March 29, 1966, effective July 1, 1966; as amended by Sup. Ct. Order No. 2, March 31, 1969, effective July 1, 1969.
Source & verification. Rule text and History are
reproduced verbatim from the South Dakota Codified Laws, published by the
South Dakota Legislative Research Council. Last verified July 16, 2026.
· Official source
Also known as: consolidating cases south dakotaseparate trials sd rule 42joint trial common question south dakotabifurcated trial south dakota civil casecombining lawsuits sd civil procedure