Opinion
No. 95-CC-1035
May 19, 1995
IN RE: Ely, Gaynell; — Plaintiff(s); Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, Number 95CW-0797; Parish of Orleans Civil District Court Div. "K" Number 94-11684.
Denied.
WFM
JLD
HTL
BJJ
JPV
CALOGERO, C.J. concurs and assigns reasons.
WATSON, J. would grant the writ.
KIMBALL, J. not on panel.
The defendant's motion was filed under LSA-C.C.P. Art. 1561, which provides for consolidation of two or more separate suits involving common issues of law or fact in the same court. This is a procedural device which allows a trial court to deal with similar issues of law or fact in one trial; it does not merge the parties, affect the running of delays, or authorize consolidation of judgments or appeals. St. Pe v. Neal, 534 So.2d 993 (La.App. 4 Cir. 1988); Howard v. Hercules-Gallion Co., 417 So.2d 508 (La.App. 3 Cir. 1982); Marcotte v. Travelers Ins. Co., 236 So.2d 587 (La.App. 1 Cir. 1970), aff'd, 249 So.2d 105 (La. 1971); Burke v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 234 So.2d 432 (La.App. 2 Cir. 1970); Voth v. American Home Assur. Co., 219 So.2d 236 (La.App. 4 Cir. 1969). Contrast LSA-C.C.P. Arts. 461- 465 ("cumulation of actions").
In this case the defendant has merely moved to "consolidate" trial of two lawsuits presenting factually and legally similar, if not identical, issues in different divisions of the same civil district court. The Ely class's objections are not well-founded because "consolidation," unlike "cumulation," of their action will not result in the rendering of a single judgment, thus possibly "diluting" or otherwise prejudicing theEly class's claims. Rather, this procedure will only allow the trial court to more efficiently manage the trial of two remarkably similar class action lawsuits. See, however, LSA-C.C.P. Art. 597 (final judgment on the class action "concludes all members of the class"). The court of appeal therefore did not err by ordering that the two actions be consolidated for purposes of trial.