N.M. R. Civ. P. Dist. Ct. 1-042
N.M. R. Civ. P. Dist. Ct. 1-042
ANNOTATIONS The 2012 amendment, approved by Supreme Court Order No. 12-8300-023, effective January 7, 2013, expanded the application of the rule to provide for the joint hearing and trial or consolidation of actions pending within a judicial district; and in Paragraph A, after "pending", deleted "before" and added "within a judicial district".
For joinder of claims and remedies, see Rule 1-018 NMRA. For separate trial upon permissive joinder, see Rule 1-020 NMRA. For separation of claims upon misjoinder, see Rule 1-021 NMRA. For sanction against unnecessarily splitting actions, see Section 39-2-3 NMSA 1978. For consolidation of actions on mechanics' liens, see Section 48-2-14 NMSA 1978. For consolidation of actions on oil and gas well and pipeline liens, see Section 70-4-9 NMSA 1978. Compiler's notes. - Paragraph A is deemed to have superseded 105-828, C.S. 1929, which was substantially the same. Paragraph B together with Rule 1-015 NMRA, are deemed to have superseded 105-604, C.S. 1929, relating to amended pleadings and separation of misjoined causes. It is improper to consolidate one suit that is in the early stages of litigation with another suit that is on appeal. Roark v. Farmers Group, Inc., 2007-NMCA-074, 142 N.M. 59, 162 P.3d 896, cert. denied, 2007-NMCERT-006. Counterclaim or cross-claim to quiet title allowed in mortgage foreclosure action. Ortega, Snead, Dixon & Hanna v. Gennitti, 1979-NMSC-056, 93 N.M. 135, 597 P.2d 745. Consolidation is within the discretion of the trial court. Kassel v. Anderson, 1973-NMCA-028, 84 N.M. 697, 507 P.2d 444, overruled on other grounds, Fidelity Nat'l Bank v. Tommy L. Goff, Inc., 1978-NMSC-074, 92 N.M. 106, 583 P.2d 470; Bloom v. Lewis, 1980-NMCA-155, 97 N.M. 435, 640 P.2d 935. Exercise of such discretion not overturned absent abuse. - The consolidation of causes of action is a matter vested solely within the discretion of the trial court and the exercise of such discretion will not be disturbed on appeal absent a showing of abuse of discretion. Hanratty v. Middle Rio Grande Conservancy Dist., 1970-NMSC-157, 82 N.M. 275, 480 P.2d 165, cert. denied, 404 U.S. 841, 92 S. Ct. 135, 30 L. Ed. 2d 75 (1971); Five Keys, Inc. v. Pizza Inn, Inc., 1982-NMSC-129, 99 N.M. 39, 653 P.2d 870. If there are questions common to two cases at the time consolidation is ordered, the order is reviewable only if the court abused its discretion in entering the order. Doe v. City of Albuquerque, 1981-NMCA-049, 96 N.M. 433, 631 P.2d 728. District court did not have power to compel consolidated arbitration over party's objection. - While district court may have thought consolidation of arbitration proper in interests of judicial economy, under Arbitration Act the court had power to compel only two separate arbitration proceedings according to terms of two contracts and did not have power to compel consolidated arbitration over objection of party. Pueblo of Laguna v. Cillessen & Son, 1984-NMSC-060, 101 N.M. 341, 682 P.2d 197. Consistent results in consolidated cases not required. - There is no legal requirement of consistency of result where separate cases are consolidated for trial. In the trial of consolidated cases, absent error in the pleading, proof or submission of the action, each case retains its distinctive characteristics and remains separate in respect of verdicts, findings, judgments and all other matters except the one of joint trial. Aragon v. Kasulka, 1961-NMSC-057, 68 N.M. 310, 361 P.2d 719. Successful prosecution of one claim dependent on outcome of another. - There was no error in bifurcating the trial and in subsequently denying the second trial where the bifurcation separated the civil rights claims against the city and the police chief from the claims against a police officer; the claims against the city and the police chief for inadequate training and supervision were secondary to, and dependent upon, successful prosecution of the complaint against the police officer, and the trial court determined that a successful defense by plaintiff in the first trial prevented a second trial. Baum v. Orosco, 1987-NMCA-102, 106 N.M. 265, 742 P.2d 1. Single judgment from consolidated cases reviewed singly. - Where pleadings are filed as though but one case is pending, and the court enters a single judgment from which one appeal is prosecuted and one supersedeas bond executed, it is but fair to treat the case in the supreme court as presenting but a single appeal. Palmer v. Town of Farmington, 1919-NMSC-003, 25 N.M. 145, 179 P. 227 (decided under former law). Separate judgments from consolidated cases reviewed separately. - Where separate cases are consolidated for trial purposes only by order of the court, and separate judgments are rendered in each case, those several judgments cannot be reviewed in a single appeal or writ of error. Clark v. Queen Ins. Co., 1916 -NMSC-080, 22 N.M. 368, 163 P. 371 (decided under former law). Applicability of Paragraph B. - Subdivision (b) (see now Paragraph B) applies where all parties are subject to trial by jury and one or more of the parties demand a separate trial by jury. El Paso Elec. v. Real Estate Mart, Inc., 1982-NMCA-101, 98 N.M. 490, 650 P.2d 12. Separation within discretion of trial court. - The granting of a motion for a separate trial on the issue of the validity of a release is a matter resting within the sound discretion of the trial court and will not be disturbed unless there is a clear abuse of such discretion shown. Mendenhall v. Vandeventer, 1956-NMSC-064, 61 N.M. 277, 299 P.2d 457. The bifurcation of a trial is within the sound discretion of the trial court and will not be disturbed absent an abuse of discretion. McCrary v. Bill McCarty Constr. Co., 1979 -NMCA-017, 92 N.M. 552, 591 P.2d 683. Granting severance is discretionary with the trial judge. Speer v. Cimosz, 1982-NMCA-029, 97 N.M. 602, 642 P.2d 205. The district court, for purposes of convenience, avoiding prejudice, or for the purpose of expediting the trial of the issues or in the interests of judicial economy, may direct that specific issues be tried separately. Bolton v. Board of Cnty. Comm'rs, 1994-NMCA-167, 119 N.M. 355, 890 P.2d 808. Court order of separate trial reviewable only for abuse of discretion. - The court order of a separate trial of any claim or separate issue when separate trials will be conducive to expedition and economy is reviewable only for abuse of discretion. State ex rel. Reynolds v. Pecos Valley Artesian Conservancy Dist., 1983-NMSC-044, 99 N.M. 699, 663 P.2d 358. Separability prerequisite to separate trial of issue. - Upon remand, the appellate court may order a separate trial of any separate issue where it appears that the issue to be retried is so distinct and separable from the others that a trial of it alone may be had without injustice. Vivian v. Atchison, T. & S.F. Ry., 1961 -NMSC-093, 69 N.M. 6, 363 P.2d 620. Potential prejudice grounds for separation. - Where there is a danger that the evidence upon the defendant's negligence, or plaintiff's freedom from contributory negligence, may create an atmosphere which will produce an unconscious influence upon the triers of fact as to the entirely disconnected and distinct issue of the validity and sufficiency of a release acknowledging receipt of money in full settlement for all injuries and property damages resulting from the accident, the issue of the validity of the release should be tried separately. Mendenhall v. Vandeventer, 1956-NMSC-064, 61 N.M. 277, 299 P.2d 457. Denial of separate trial motion and use of jury in advisory capacity necessitating new trial. - Trial court's denial of a motion for separate trial and its submission of equitable issues to the jury in a shareholders' derivative suit, without entering the court's own findings of fact and conclusions of law, thereby using the jury in an advisory capacity, was the equivalent of an abuse of discretion necessitating a new trial. Scott v. Woods, 1986-NMCA-076, 105 N.M. 177, 730 P.2d 480. Am. Jur. 2d, A.L.R. and C.J.S. references. - 1 Am. Jur. 2d Actions §18 et seq.; 20 Am. Jur. 2d Counterclaim, Recoupment and Setoff §§56, 58; 75 Am. Jur. 2d Trial §115 et seq. Power of equity to enjoin prosecution of independent actions at law by different persons injured by the same tort, 75 A.L.R. 1444. Consolidation of actions for personal injuries or property damage arising out of same accident as affected by fact that one action has been set down for trial without a jury, 104 A.L.R. 75, 68 A.L.R.2d 1372. Right of defendant sued jointly with another or others in action for personal injury or death to separate trial, 174 A.L.R. 734. Appellate review, on single appellate proceeding, of separate actions consolidated for trial together in lower court, right to, 36 A.L.R.2d 823. Time for making application for consolidation of actions, 73 A.L.R.2d 739. Separate trial of issues of liability and damages in tort, 85 A.L.R.2d 9. Right of plaintiff suing jointly with others to separate trial or order of severance, 99 A.L.R.2d 670. Propriety of separate trials of issues of tort liability and of validity and effect of release, 4 A.L.R.3d 456. Propriety of ordering separate trials as to liability and damages, under Rule 42(b) of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, in actions involving personal injury, death, or property damage, 78 A.L.R. Fed. 890. Propriety of ordering separate trials as to liability and damages, under Rule 42(b) of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, in civil rights actions, 79 A.L.R. Fed. 220. Propriety of ordering separate trials as to liability and damages, under Rule 42(b) of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, in actions involving patents and copyrights, 79 A.L.R. Fed. 532. Propriety of ordering separate trials as to liability and damages, under Rule 42(b) of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, in contract actions, 79 A.L.R. Fed. 812. Propriety of ordering consolidation under Rule 42(a) of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in civil rights actions, 81 A.L.R. Fed. 732. Propriety of ordering consolidation under Rule 42(a) of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in actions involving patents, copyrights, or trademarks, 82 A.L.R. Fed. 719. Propriety of ordering consolidation under Rule 42(a) of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in actions involving securities, 83 A.L.R. Fed. 367. 1A C.J.S. Actions §§ 205, 220 to 228; 88 C.J.S. Trial §§ 6 to 10.