Printable Format60-242. Multicounty and multidistrict litigation. (a) Consolidation. If actions involving a common question of law or fact are pending before the court in the same or different counties in the judicial district, the court may:
(1) Join for hearing or trial any or all matters at issue in the actions;
(2) consolidate the actions; or
(3) issue any other orders to avoid unnecessary cost or delay.
(b) Separate trials. For convenience, to avoid prejudice or to expedite and economize, the court may order a separate trial in the county where the action is pending, or a different county in the judicial district, of one or more separate issues, claims, counterclaims, crossclaims or third-party claims. When ordering a separate trial, the court must preserve any right to a jury trial.
(c) Multidistrict litigation. (1) When civil actions arising out of the same transaction or occurrence or series of transactions or occurrences are pending in different judicial districts, the supreme court, on request of a party or of any court in which one of the actions is pending and upon finding that a transfer and consolidation will promote the just and efficient conduct of the actions, may order transfer of the pending actions to one of the counties in which an action is pending. The actions may be consolidated for discovery, pretrial proceedings and possible trial. The supreme court must designate a judge to hear the consolidated actions. Actions filed subsequent to the order may be consolidated as provided in this section.
(2) The assigned judge may conduct all pretrial and discovery proceedings, issue pretrial and discovery orders, decide questions of law, including motions for summary judgment and, when the assigned judge conducts a trial, allocate expenses of the trial among counties.
(3) The assigned judge may conduct a joint trial of any or all of the consolidated actions, but all parties to the actions jointly tried must consent to joint trial. Jury trials may be conducted in any county that would have had venue of any of the consolidated actions, subject to a change of venue under K.S.A. 60-609, and amendments thereto. If the assigned judge decides not to conduct the trial of any of the consolidated actions or if a party to any of the consolidated actions does not consent to joint trial, the assigned judge must return that action, and the record in that action, to the district court from which it originated. The assigned judge must notify the supreme court that the action has been returned.
History: L. 1963, ch. 303, 60-242; amended by Supreme Court order dated July 17, 1969; L. 1983, ch. 195, § 1; L. 2010, ch. 135, § 111; July 1.
Source or prior law:
(a). G.S. 1868, ch. 80, §§ 145, 146; L. 1909, ch. 182, § 146; R.S. 1923, 60-765.
(b). G.S. 1868, ch. 80, § 268; L. 1909, ch. 182, § 280; R.S. 1923, 60-2904.
Cross References to Related Sections:
Hearings, where conducted, see 60-104.
Hearings on defenses and objections, preliminary, see 60-212(d).
Hearings or trials outside county, when, see 60-612.
Joinder of claims and remedies, see 60-218.
Joinder of parties, see 60-219, 60-220.
Counterclaims and cross-claims, see 60-213(i).
Judgment upon multiple claims, see 60-254(b).
Third parties, claims, see 60-214.
Law Review and Bar Journal References:
"Survival of Actions and Wrongful Death," Lawrence E. Curfman, 12 K.L.R. 21, 23 (1963).
Paragraph (a); allows consolidation of certain actions not permitted under old code, Earl B. Shurtz, 14 K.L.R. 171, 178 (1965).
Cited in discussion of wrongful death act, Robert C. Casad, 13 K.L.R. 515, 516 (1965).
Subsection (a) discussed with respect to cases involving reaggravation of prior injuries in subsequent automobile accident, 15 K.L.R. 109, 110, 112 (1966).
Common disaster consolidation under paragraph (a) discussed in "Handling an Air Crash Case," Terry O'Keefe, 37 J.B.A.K. 291, 295 (1968).
Subsection (b); survey of civil procedure, Spencer A. Gard, 17 K.L.R. 739, 748 (1969).
Subsection (b); discussion of developments in debtor-creditor law between 1965 and 1969, Robert B. Morton, 18 K.L.R. 351, 377 (1970).
"Recent Development in Kansas Civil Procedure," E. Elinor P. Schroeder, 32 K.L.R. 515 (1984).
CASE ANNOTATIONS
Prior law cases, see G.S. 1949, 60-765, 60-2904 and the 1961 Supp. thereto.
1. Separate actions with separate plaintiffs cannot be consolidated unless plaintiffs have interest in same subject and relief demanded. Gardner v. Pereboom, 194 Kan. 231, 232, 398 P.2d 293.
2. Mentioned; distinction made between section and G.S. 1949, 60-3317. Gardner v. Pereboom, 194 Kan. 231, 235, 398 P.2d 293.
3. Trial court may separate issue of liability under K.S.A. 66-232 from issue of attorney's fees under K.S.A. 66-233. Thomas v. Kansas City Southern Rly. Co., 197 Kan. 747, 752, 753, 755, 421 P.2d 51.
4. Trial court may separate issue of possession from issue of recovery of unpaid rent in accordance with subsection (b). Guy Pine, Inc. v. Chrysler Motors Corp., 201 Kan. 371, 373, 374, 440 P.2d 595.
5. Wrongful death action; evidentiary rulings; insurance coverage references; record reviewed; no error. Bott v. Wendler, 203 Kan. 212, 213, 453 P.2d 100.
6. Cited in holding that a judge for convenience, economy or to avoid prejudice may order a separate trial of any separate issue. Hindman v. Shepard, 205 Kan. 207, 216, 468 P.2d 103.
7. Court's decision to try case as a split-trial held not an abuse of discretionary power. Tilley v. International Harvester Co., 208 Kan. 75, 81, 490 P.2d 392.
8. Statute applied. Schwartz v. Western Power and Gas Co., Inc., 208 Kan. 844, 852, 494 P.2d 1113.
9. Separation of issues not equivalent to substitution of parties in jury trial. Winner v. Ratzlaff, 211 Kan. 59, 66, 505 P.2d 606.
10. Failure of trial court to dispose of counterclaim of defendant dismissed by directed verdict not prejudicial to plaintiff. Karrigan v. Nazareth Convent & Academy, Inc., 212 Kan. 44, 52, 510 P.2d 190.
11. Court did not abuse discretion in refusing to consolidate all cases arising out of same transaction. Plains Transport of Kansas, Inc. v. Baldwin, 217 Kan. 2, 4, 535 P.2d 865.
12. Mentioned in a consolidated action where court ordered that homeowner's judgment against insurer be paid to contractor. Febert v. Upland Mutual Ins. Co., 222 Kan. 197, 200, 563 P.2d 467.
13. Cited; mere plotting and planning in anticipation of public improvement not coupled with legal restriction on use not "taking" of property. Lone Star Industries, Inc. v. Secretary, Dept. of Transp., 234 Kan. 121, 131, 671 P.2d 511 (1983).
14. Bifurcation proper where case involved multiple plaintiffs, defendants and numerous determinations of fault and damages. Betts v. General Motors Corp., 236 Kan. 108, 116, 689 P.2d 795 (1984).
15. No error in trial court adding co-plaintiff as contingently necessary party. McHorse v. Koontz, 27 Kan. App. 2d 817, 7 P.3d 1272 (2000).
16. Bifurcation provisions are inapplicable with respect to the separate elements of a single crime. State v. Miller, 308 Kan. 1119, 1145, 427 P.3d 907 (2018).