Motion to Consolidate in Pennsylvania

What Is a Motion to Consolidate?

Background

Rule 213(a) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure provides:

“In actions pending in a county which involve a common question of law or fact or which arise from the same transaction or occurrence, the court on its own motion or on the motion of any party may order a joint hearing or trial of any matter in issue in the actions, may order the actions consolidated, and may make orders that avoid unnecessary cost or delay.” (Pa.R.Civ.P. 213(a).)

General Information for Complaints and Motions

Thus, under Rule 213(a), a trial court has three options where pending actions involve either a common question of law or fact, or which arise from the same transaction:

ordering a joint trial or hearing on any matter at issue;
ordering the actions “consolidated”; and
issuing other orders designed to avoid unnecessary costs or delay.

(Kincy v. Petro (2010) 606 Pa. 524, 528-29; see also Malanchuk v. Tsimura, 137 A.3d 1283, 1284 (Pa. 2016) (In response to Appellee's motion “the common pleas court entered an order consolidating the actions ‘for purposes of discovery, arbitration, and if appealed, trial.’” Order dated June 6, 2011, in Malanchuk v. Sivchuk, No. 3249 May Term 2009 [C.P.Phila.], and Malanchuk v. Tsimura, No. 4727 April Term 2010 [C.P.Phila].”)

Standard of Review and Burdens of Proof

“The decision to grant or deny consolidation is a pure matter of discretion.... A trial court commits an abuse of discretion only where the record indicates that the trial court misapplied the law, exhibited a manifestly unreasonable exercise of judgment, or when the final result evidences partiality, prejudice, bias, or ill-will.” (Newtown Square East, L.P. v. Twp. of Newtown (2011) 38 A.3d 1008, 1017 citing Mento v. Bd. of Sch. Dirs. of the Montour Sch. Dist. (2011) 35 A.3d 66.)

The Court’s Decision

“In a proper case the court should consolidate separate actions to avoid multiplicity of trials or hearings and to reduce the expense to the parties.” (Corbett v. Weisband, 380 Pa. Super. 292, 317 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1988) [finding no abuse of discretion by the trial court in it's decision to consolidate]; citing also Lohmiller v. Weidenbaugh (1982) 302 Pa.Super. 174, 182; Pa.R.C.P. 213.)

In Roznowski v. Pa. Nat'l MM. Cos. Ins. Co. [343 Pa.Super. 7, 493 A.2d 775 (1985)], the Superior Court recognized that Rule 213 authorizes consolidation of actions for trial, and, citing Azinger, noted ‘[w]hen separate actions are consolidated for trial, each action retains its separate character. Each has its own docket entries, and each produces its own verdict and judgment.’” (Kincy v. Petro (2010) 606 Pa. 524, 530 n.4 quoting id., 493 A.2d at 777-78; see also Hill v. Hill (1993) 422 Pa.Super. 533 [opining that Rule 213 is consistent with Azinger, and holding that trial court properly consolidated pursuant to Rule 213 a petition for contempt and petitions to modify a custody order, all of which ‘dealt with the custody order, its implementation and possible violations.’”])

Documents for Motion to Consolidate in Pennsylvania

Sort By

KEVIN BOUTHNER, DECEASED vs. YORK LABORATORY ASSOCIATES Civil: Professional Liability - Medical document preview

MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE AND AMEND CAPTION WITH CERT OF SVC - MOTION TO CONSO…

11 pages

York County Prothonotary Civil E-Filed - 20 Dec 2023 02:21:53 PM IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF YORK COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA TROY BOUTHNER, INDIVIDUALLY AND As ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF KEVIN BOUTHNER DockET No. 2023-SU-002336 PLAINTIFF : PROFESSIONAL MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE V. YORK LABORATORY ASSOCIATES; J. ANDER PINDZOLA, M.D.; JOHN WRIGHT, M.D.; WILLIAM TAYLOR, M.D.; …

Case Name KEVIN BOUTHNER, DECEASED vs. YORK LABORATORY ASSOCIATES