Motion to Consolidate in Louisiana

Understanding the Purpose and Significance of a Motion to Consolidate

“Consolidation of cases wherein the court finds that common issues and facts and law predominate and that judicial economy will be served by the consolidation has been allowed under La.C.C.P. art. 1561.” (See Francois v. Gibeault (2010) 47 So. 3d 998, 1002.)

Additionally, “according to this court's Internal Rule 2.3(f)(2), when two or more civil appeals are pending, and arise out of the same district court number, and involve the same facts and circumstances (as with the two appeals here), the panel to which the lower appellate numbered appeal is allotted may consolidate the appeals into the lower appellate numbered appeal.” (See Beverly Constr., L.L.C. v. Wadsworth Estates, L.L.C., 297 So. 3d 1, 2 (La. Ct. App. 2020)

Procedural Steps Involved in Filing a Motion to Consolidate

Consolidation is governed under Article 1561 of the Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure.

It states that “when two or more separate actions are pending in the same court, the section or division of the court in which the first filed action is pending may order consolidation of the actions for trial or other limited purposes after a contradictory hearing, upon a finding that common issues of fact and law predominate, and, in the event a trial date has been set in a subsequently filed action, upon a finding that consolidation is in the interest of justice.” (See La. Code Civ. Proc. art. 1561(A).)

“The contradictory hearing may be waived upon the certification by the mover that all parties in all cases to be consolidated consent to the consolidation.” (See id.)

“Consolidation shall not be ordered if it would do any of the following:

1. Cause jury confusion.
2. Prevent a fair and impartial trial.
3. Give one party an undue advantage.
4. Prejudice the rights of any party.”

(See La. Code Civ. Proc. art. 1561(B).)

Discretion of the Court in Deciding a Motion to Consolidate

“Pursuant to LSA-C.C.P. art. 1561, our Courts may consolidate for trial separate suits involving a common issue of law or fact, or order a joint trial of any of the common issues.” (See Leatherman v. Parish of E. Baton Rouge (1973) 275 So. 2d 806, 809.)

“A trial court's authority to consolidate under La. C.C.P. art. 1561 is discretionary, and, therefore, its decision is reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard.” (See Sutton v. Adams (2022) 351 So. 3d 411, 419.)

“Generally, an abuse of discretion results from a conclusion reached capriciously or in an arbitrary manner.” (See Sullivan v. Brookshire Grocery Co. & Sealy Uptown, LLC (2022) 348 So. 3d 872, 875.)

“The word ‘arbitrary’ implies a disregard of evidence or the proper weight thereof. A conclusion is ‘capricious’ when there is no substantial evidence to support it or the conclusion is contrary to substantiated competent evidence.” (See id.)

“Although a reviewing court defers to reasonable decisions within the trial court's discretion, a decision based upon an erroneous interpretation or application of the law, rather than a valid exercise of discretion, is not entitled to such deference.” (See id.)

Legal Precedents and Case Law on a Motion to Consolidate

It is well settled that “cumulation of actions is the joinder of separate actions in the same judicial demand, whether by a single plaintiff against a single defendant, or by one or more plaintiffs against one or more defendants.” (See Gilbert v. Metro. Life Ins. Co. (2021) 321 So. 3d 1023, 1030.)

It is also well settled that “Consolidation [is] permissible and advisable for reasons of judicial economy.” (See State v. Wallace (1989) 539 So. 2d 123, 125.)