The court of appeals noted that under Rule 174, actions involving a common question of law or fact may be consolidated. The trial court must balance judicial economy and convenience against the risk of prejudice or jury confusion. Consolidation is improper if the parties and issues differ. The court stated:
A trial court has broad but not unlimited discretion to consolidate cases with common issues of law or fact. A trial court may consolidate actions that relate to substantially the same transaction, occurrence, subject matter, or question. “The actions should be so related that the evidence presented will be material, relevant, and admissible in each case.” A trial court may abuse its discretion by “incorrectly resolving the relatedness issue or by consolidating cases when the consolidation results in prejudice to the complaining party.” “The central and primary requirement for consolidation of actions as directed by rule 174(a) is that there must exist common issues of law or fact in both cases.” In deciding whether to consolidate, the trial court must balance the judicial economy and convenience that may be gained by the consolidation against the risk of an unfair outcome because of prejudice or jury confusion. Further, in determining whether to consolidate, the trial court must “exercise a sound and legal discretion within limits created by the circumstances of the particular case” and consider whether the legal rights of the parties will be prejudiced by consolidation. Consolidation is improper “if the parties and issues differ.”
Id.
The appellate court found that the trial court abused its discretion by failing to recognize the commonality of issues and by incorrectly resolving the relatedness of the cases. The appellate court conditionally granted the petition for writ of mandamus, ordering the trial court to vacate its order denying consolidation and to grant the motion to consolidate the two cases.