2001-01-26 Harley-Davidson Response - Minnesota Judicial Branch

to the defendant. Therefore, the complaint should be dismissed
without prejudice. (Friederichs Aff., Ex. E, pp. 3-4.)
Petitioners acknowledge that this decision by the trial court is appealable. In fact,
petitioners state they intend to appeal this decision once judgment is entered. (Memorandum of
Law in Support of Motion for Assignment of Cases to Single Judge Pursuant to Minn.R.Gen.Prac.
113, p. 7.)
In light of the procedural history of this case, this motion for consolidation should be
denied. While petitioners could have brought this motion in a more timely fashion prior to
bringing their own consolidated lawsuit, petitioners chose to do otherwise. Raving chosen its
“remedy,” petitioners should not now be allowed to circumvent the appropriate appellate procedure
6
because they dislike the court’s ruling that they themselves sought. Rule 113 of the General Rules
of Practice was never designed to permit parties to avoid taking appeals on procedural rulings by
the trial court. Accepting this motion at this time would set a poor precedent and should be
rejected.
II. CONSOLIDATION OF THE CLAIMS WOULD BE IMPROPER AND
PREJUDICIAL
The law in Minnesota is clear that only matters involving common questions of law or fact
may be consolidated. Minn.R.Civ.P. 42.01. Although the trial court has broad discretion under
Rule 42.01, this discretion must not be exercised so broadly as to sacrifice a fair trial for
convenience and economy. Sorenson v. Kruse, 293 N.W.2d 56,62 (Minn.1980). It is an abuse of
.
discretion to order consolidation where it is prejudicial to the separate interests the parties. m
“fgv.
Priebe, 284 Minn. 561,170 N.W.2d 235 (Minn. 1969); Bucko v. First Minnesota Sav. Bank,
F.S.B. 452 N.W.2d 244 (MinnApp. 1990) (trial court abused discretion in consolidating actions
where issue of actual damages was not common question).
5