Group VI: Trials · Last amended March 1, 2017 · Last verified July 14, 2026
Added February 2, 2017, effective March 1, 2017.
Rule 42(a) applies when separate actions before the court share a common question of law or fact. In that situation, the court can join any or all of the matters at issue for a combined hearing or trial, consolidate the actions outright, or issue whatever other order helps avoid needless cost or delay. This gives judges flexibility to manage related cases efficiently rather than litigating the same ground twice.
Rule 42(b) runs the opposite direction. For convenience, to avoid prejudice, or to speed up and streamline the proceedings, a court can order a separate trial of one or more issues, claims, crossclaims, counterclaims, or third-party claims within a single case. Whenever it splits a case this way, though, the court must preserve any right to a jury trial that a party would otherwise have on those issues.
Rule 42(a) allows consolidation whenever actions pending before the court involve a common question of law or fact, giving the court discretion to join, combine, or otherwise manage them together.
Not necessarily. The rule gives the court several options — joining matters for hearing or trial, consolidating the actions, or issuing other orders — so the degree of merger depends on what the court orders.
A court may split off one or more issues or claims for their own trial for convenience, to avoid prejudice to a party, or to expedite and economize the proceedings.
No. Rule 42(b) specifically requires the court to preserve any right to a jury trial when it orders separate trials of issues or claims.
The court does, acting on its own judgment about what avoids unnecessary cost or delay, or what serves convenience and fairness in a given case.