Motion to Consolidate in Kansas

Understanding the Purpose and Significance of a Motion to Consolidate

“The Kansas Code of Civil Procedure (K.S.A. 60-242) provides that a judge may order a consolidation of actions for trial when actions pending before the court involve a common question of law or fact.” (See Plains Transport of Kansas, Inc. v. Baldwin (1975) 217 Kan. 2, 4-5.)

“The statute uses the word ‘may,’ leaving the matter to the sound discretion of the district court.” (See id.)

“In Schwartz v. Western Power Gas Co., Inc., 208 Kan. 844, 494 P.2d 1113, this court stated the purpose of the statute is to give broad discretion to decide how cases on the docket are to be tried. The consent of the parties is not required.” (See id.)

Procedural Steps Involved in Filing a Motion to Consolidate

Consolidation of actions are governed under subsection 60-242 of the Kansas Statutes.

“If actions involving a common question of law or fact are pending before the court in the same or different counties in the judicial district, the court may:

1. Join for hearing or trial any or all matters at issue in the actions;
2. consolidate the actions; or
3. issue any other orders to avoid unnecessary cost or delay.”

(See Kan. Stat. § 60-242(a).)

Discretion of the Court in Deciding a Motion to Consolidate

The court “may make such orders concerning the proceedings as may tend to avoid unnecessary cost or delay.” (See Febert v. Upland Mutual Ins. Co. (1977) 222 Kan. 197, 200.)

“The decision to consolidate rests within the sound discretion of the trial court and its holding will not be disturbed on appeal absent a clear showing of abuse of that discretion.” (See State v. Pondexter (1983) 234 Kan. 208, 216.)

“It is within the discretion of the district court to decide how cases on the docket are to be tried and it is for the court to weigh the saving of time and effort consolidation would produce against any inconvenience, delay or expense that it would cause.” (See Plains Transport of Kansas, Inc. v. Baldwin (1975) 217 Kan. 2; McHorse v. Eaks (2000) 7 P.3d 1272, 1275.)

“Judicial discretion is abused only when no reasonable person would take the view adopted by the trial court.” (See Varney Business Services, Inc. v. Pottroff (2002) 275 Kan. 20, 44, 59 P.3d 1003 (2002); Poff v. IBP, Inc. (2005) 33 Kan. App. 2d 700, 704.)

Legal Precedents and Case Law on a Motion to Consolidate

It is well settled that “a district court deciding whether to consolidate multiple cases for trial may take into consideration any evidentiary complications that might arise from the consolidation.” (See State v. Bliss (2021) 498 P.3d 1220, 1232.)

It is also well settled that “a separate trial of an issue…may be ordered by the trial judge in the furtherance of convenience and justice or to avoid prejudice and undue delay when the claims of the parties reasonably justify such action. A motion asking for issues to be tried separately at an early date rests largely in the discretion of the trial court.” (See Guy Pine, Inc. v. Chrysler Motors Corp. (1968) 201 Kan. 371, 373.)