Suppose, for example, that you have decided to bring a suit against your employer for workplace harassment that occurred in the Fall of 2022. Suppose also that one of your co-employees also brings a suit against that employer for workplace harassment due to the same or similar actions on the part of the employer that also occurred in the Fall of 2022. Pursuant to Tex. R. Civ. P. 174(a):
When actions involving a common question of law or fact are pending before the court, it may order a joint hearing or trial of any or all the matters in issue in the actions; it may order all the actions consolidated; and it may make such orders concerning proceedings therein as may tend to avoid unnecessary costs or delay.
Consolidation is appropriate if one trial or hearing would serve the same purpose as two, provided no party is prejudiced. A court will consolidate two cases if the result is fewer trials, reduction of time consuming examination of evidence, and reduction of costs. Essentially, a court will consolidate to promote judicial efficiency. [H. Rouw Co. v. Tex. & N.O.R. Co., 260 S.W.2d 69, 69–70 (Tex. Civ. App.—San Antonio 1953, no writ); see Frumer, Multiple Parties and Claims in Texas, 6 Sw. L.J. 135, 138 (1952)].
If several independent actions that could have been joined as one action originally (see Tex. R. Civ. P. 40(a), 51) are pending in the same court, a court may order the actions consolidated into one action. Tex. R. Civ. P. 174(a). A court also has the discretion to transfer a case to another court in order for those cases to be consolidated.
Considering the above scenario where you and one of your co-workers brought nearly identical separate actions against your employer, the chief consideration of a court in deciding whether the two cases should be consolidated is whether the two cases derive from a “common question of law or fact.” In this simplified scenario, it is highly likely that a court would consolidate the two cases because they have same questions of law (i.e., the same causes of action and legal theories) and of fact (i.e., the same factual scenario of being discriminated against within the same time period). While there could be an argument made that your suit contains different facts and scenarios because you are a completely different party from that of your co-worker, such an argument may be futile because courts have an abundance of discretion on this issue and are chiefly concerned with judicial economy. A court would likely see two harassment cases arising out of similar actions of the employer that occurred around the same time period and conclude that the cases likely have a common question of law or fact, almost certainly could have been joined as one action originally, and would be more efficiently tried as one case.
As you can imagine, more complex, nuanced questions of consolidation can arise. Say, for example, you are sued for breach of contract by an individual and separately for fraud by an LLC owned by that same individual. Suppose, while those claims are different, they are still related to the same set of factual circumstances. May a court still consolidate these cases together? Perhaps. The court has broad discretion when determining whether to consolidate. At the end of the day, “the underlying test remains whether the two actions have a logical connection in the sense that it would be more convenient and efficient for the two actions to be tried together.” 7 Dorsaneo, Texas Litigation Guide § 112.02 (2024).
Nacol Law Firm P.C.
Dallas Civil Litigation Lawyers
Call (972) 690-3333
Disclaimer: The information provided in this article is in no way intended to constitute legal advice. The information provided is merely an overview of the relevant law. Do not act on this information. Always consult an attorney for legal advice.