(a) Consolidation. 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 action; 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
Group 6: Trials · Last amended July 1, 1967 · Last verified July 13, 2026
In one sentenceRule 42 gives the court authority to consolidate related actions that share a common question of law or fact into a joint hearing or trial, and, in the opposite direction, to order separate trials of individual claims or issues to promote convenience, avoid prejudice, or save time and expense.
Full Text of Rule 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.
Amendment History
Adopted May 5, 1967, effective July 1, 1967.
Plain-English Summary
Rule 42 hands the court two related but opposite tools for managing how cases get tried. When separate actions pending before the court share a common question of law or fact, the court can order a joint hearing or trial of the overlapping matters, consolidate the actions outright, or issue whatever other orders on the proceedings help avoid needless cost or delay. The rule does not require identical claims or parties, only a shared question significant enough that trying the cases together makes sense.
The reverse power lets the court split a single case apart. Where convenience favors it, where trying everything together would prejudice a party, or where separating claims would speed things up and save expense, the court can order a separate trial of any claim, cross claim, counterclaim, or third party claim, or of any distinct issue or group of issues. That authority comes with one express limit: whatever the court orders, it must preserve the right to a jury trial inviolate, meaning separation cannot be used as a backdoor way to strip a party of a jury right that otherwise attaches.
Frequently Asked Questions
What does a party need to show to get cases consolidated under Rule 42?
The actions must be pending before the court and involve a common question of law or fact. From there the decision to consolidate, order a joint hearing, or manage the proceedings to avoid unnecessary cost or delay rests with the court.
Can the court order separate trials within a single lawsuit?
Yes. For convenience, to avoid prejudice, or because separating issues will be quicker and less costly, the court may order separate trials of any claim, cross claim, counterclaim, third party claim, or any distinct issue.
Does ordering separate trials affect a party's right to a jury?
No. The rule specifically requires that any order for separate trials preserve the right to trial by jury inviolate.
Do consolidated cases have to involve the same parties?
The rule does not require identical parties, only that the actions pending before the court involve a common question of law or fact.
Source & verification. Rule text and amendment history are
reproduced verbatim from the Washington Superior Court Civil Rules, adopted by the
Supreme Court of Washington. Last verified July 13, 2026. ·
Official source
Also known as: consolidation of actionsseparate trials Washingtonjoint trial common questionCR 42