Opinion ID: 2575863
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: The Consolidation of Claims For Trial

Text: ¶ 14 Mitchell's response and his counter-motion for summary judgment seek the release of money seized from him at two separate eventsan arrest in 2001 and another in 2002. ¶ 15 The consolidation of claims for trial is neither mandatory nor a matter of right. [17] Consolidation is a procedural mechanism to enhance the efficiency of judicial process and its economy. [18] A trial court has broad discretion in performing its task of orderly processing of litigation to allow (or to refuse) consolidation of proceedings for trial and disposition. [19] The terms of 12 O.S.2001 § 2018(C) [20] provide for consolidation of pending actions that deal with common questions of law or fact. The statute is permissive in nature and does not alter the pre-existing common law that governs the trial court's discretionary power over consolidation requests. [21] A nisi prius consolidation decision would not be disturbed absent a clear abuse of discretion. [22] ¶ 16 An order of the trial court is required to accomplish consolidation of separate actions for trial. [23] In the orderly processing of this litigation the trial court limited itself here to the case before it. The refusal to consolidate is not shown to have transgressed the trial court's sound discretion. [24] There is here absolutely no showing of some predominant equitable consideration that demands a joint trial of the two separate claims to money which arose out of discrete events.