Motion to Consolidate in Connecticut

What Is a Motion to Consolidate?

Background

A Motion to Consolidate is governed by Practice Book § 9-5, which states, in relevant part:

“Whenever there are two or more separate actions which should be tried together, the judicial authority may, upon the motion of any party or upon its own motion, order that the actions be consolidated for trial.”

(Connecticut Practice Book § 9-5(a).)

General Information for Complaints and Motions

In Mills v. Rita H. Carter Revocable Trust, [Superior Court, judicial district of New London, Docket No. CV 126015038, (Feb. 19, 2013, Devine, J.)], the Court analyzed under what circumstances two or more causes of action may be joined together.

Connecticut General Statutes § 52-97 and Practice Book § 10-21 contain virtually identical language and state in relevant part, that:

“In any civil action the plaintiff may include in his complaint both legal and equitable rights and causes of action, and demand both legal and equitable remedies; but, if several causes of action are united in the same complaint, they shall all be brought to recover ... (2) for injuries, with or without force, to person and property, or either, including a conversion of property to the defendant's use, or ... (7) upon claims, whether in contract or tort or both, arising out of the same transaction or transactions connected with the same subject of action. The several causes of action so united shall all belong to one of these classes, and, except in an action for the foreclosure of a mortgage or lien, shall affect all the parties to the action, and not require different places of trial, and shall be separately stated; and, in any case in which several causes of action are joined in the same complaint, or as matter of counterclaim or set-off in the answer, if it appears to the court that they cannot all be conveniently heard together, the court may order a separate trial of any such cause of action or may direct that any one or more of them be expunged from the complaint or answer.”

“The question of whether two actions ought to be consolidated is addressed to the discretion of the trial court.” (DiBella v. Town of Greenwich, Superior Court, judicial district of Stamford-Norwalk, Docket No. X08CV095012500S, 2012 Conn. Super. LEXIS 1556, at *3-4 [May 22, 2012. Brazzel-Massaro, J.] citing, Rode v. Adley Express Co., Inc. (1943) 130 Conn. 274, 277 [overruled on other grounds by Gionfriddo v. Gartenhaus Cafe (1988) 15 Conn. App. 392, 397.)

Standard of Review and Burdens of Proof

“A motion to consolidate is addressed to the discretion of the court, and [the court's] exercise of that discretion will not be reversed on appeal, unless in a case of manifest abuse.” (Valentine v. Labow (2006) 95 Conn. App. 436, 453-54 citing Tracy v. New York, N.H. & H.R. Co. (1909) 82 Conn. 1, 6.)

The Court’s Decision

“Independent of statutory authority, courts of general jurisdiction have inherent power to consolidate different causes, or order them tried together, when the circumstances authorize such course; and unless otherwise provided by statute, questions respecting such procedure are addressed to the discretion of the trial court, and its action will not be, revised unless an abuse of discretion clearly appears." (Rode v. Adley Express Co. (1943) 130 Conn. 274, 277 quoting Yardley v. Rutland R. Co. (1931) 103 Vt. 182, 185.)

“[T]he public has an interest in the prevention of unnecessary litigation, both because of the burden it places on the State and the resulting crowding of the dockets of the courts. This procedure of trying cases together, which has long been the established practice in this state, assists in expediting business without doing anyone an injustice.” (Id.)

Documents for Motion to Consolidate in Connecticut

Sort By

62-64 BANK STREET, LLC v. AMELIO, CARMINE document preview

NOTICE OF REMOVAL TO FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT

56 pages

12122086860 From: Carmine Ameli: Page: 02 of 57 2024-03-29 21:18:34 GMT To: LLI-CV24-6035910-S SUPERIOR COURT DOCKET NO: I.D. OF LITCHFIELD 62-64 BANK STREET, LLC VS. AT TORRINGTON CARMINE AMELIO …