Opinion ID: 1249280
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Consolidation for All Purposes

Text: Utah Code Ann. § 73-3-15 (1980) [3] provides in part: An action to review a decision of the state engineer may be dismissed upon the application of any of the parties upon the grounds provided in Rule 41 of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure for the dismissal of actions generally and for failure to prosecute such action with diligence. For the purpose of this section[,] failure to prosecute a suit to final judgment within two years after it is filed, or, if an appeal is taken to the Supreme Court within three years after the filing of the suit, shall constitute lack of diligence. All suits heretofore or hereafter commenced must be dismissed after ten days' notice by regular mail to the plaintiff, unless such suits are or were prosecuted to final judgment within the time specified above.... Jensen contends that because of the consolidation, the two-year limitation in section 73-3-15 is no longer operative. He relies upon the following statement in a 1936 edition of Corpus Juris Secundum: The effect of a consolidation of actions at law is to unite and merge all of the different actions consolidated into a single action for the purpose of all further proceedings the same as if the different causes of action involved had originally been joined in a single action. Thereafter all subsequent proceedings are conducted and the rights of the parties adjudicated in a single action, and there can be no further proceedings in the separate actions, which, by virtue of the consolidation, are discontinued and superseded by the single action. 1 C.J.S. Actions § 113, at 1371-72 (1936). The above-quoted passage gives a general overview of the effect of a consolidation of actions at law. However, we have held that judicial review of the state engineer's decisions and general adjudication proceedings are both actions in equity. See Bullock v. Hanks, 22 Utah 2d 308, 312 n. 2, 452 P.2d 866, 870 n. 2 (1969); Smith v. District Court, 69 Utah 493, 256 P. 539 (1927). In a more recent edition of Corpus Juris Secundum, the effect of consolidation of actions in equity is discussed. Except where provided by statute, a consolidation in equity does not merge the suits and they maintain their separate identity in so far as the parties, issues, and proof are concerned. 1A C.J.S. Actions § 217, at 690 (1985). [A] consolidation of actions does not affect the rights of the parties. Thus, it does not deprive defendant of his defense to one of the actions.... For the purpose of dismissing a suit for want of prosecution, actions which have been consolidated are treated as distinct. 1A C.J.S. Actions § 216, at 687 (1985); see also 9 Charles A. Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2382, at 255 (1971) (actions do not lose their separate identities merely because of consolidation); Bode v. Trousdale Constr. Co., 80 Cal.Rptr. 774, 778, 276 Cal.App.2d 419, 423 (1969) ([I]ndividual actions ... should be treated as distinct even though they have been consolidated, and the time for bringing each action to trial should be measured from the time that particular action was filed.). We agree with the above-stated authorities and therefore reject Jensen's contention that consolidation rendered section 73-3-15 inoperative.