On motion of any party, a circuit court may enter an order joining, coordinating, consolidating or transferring civil actions as provided in this chapter upon finding that:
1. Separate civil actions brought by six or more plaintiffs involve common questions of law or fact and arise out of the same transaction, occurrence or series of transactions or occurrences;
2. The common questions of law or fact predominate and are significant to the actions; and
3. The order (i) will promote the ends of justice and the just and efficient conduct and disposition of the actions, and (ii) is consistent with each party's right to due process of law, and (iii) does not prejudice each individual party's right to a fair and impartial resolution of each action.
Factors to be considered by the court include, but are not limited to, (i) the nature of the common questions of law or fact; (ii) the convenience of the parties, witnesses and counsel; (iii) the relative stages of the actions and the work of counsel; (iv) the efficient utilization of judicial facilities and personnel; (v) the calendar of the courts; (vi) the likelihood and disadvantages of duplicative and inconsistent rulings, orders or judgments; (vii) the likelihood of prompt settlement of the actions without the entry of the order; and (viii) as to joint trials by jury, the likelihood of prejudice or confusion.
The court may organize and manage the combined litigation and enter further orders consistent with the right of each party to a fair trial as may be appropriate to avoid unnecessary costs, duplicative litigation or delay and to assure fair and efficient conduct and resolution of the litigation, including orders that organize the parties into groups with like interest; appoint counsel to have lead responsibility for certain matters; allocate costs and attorney fees to separate issues into common questions that require treatment on a consolidated basis and individual cases that do not; and stay discovery on the issues that are not consolidated.
1995, c. 555; 2023, c. 563.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
26
cases (
4 in the last 5 years), 1997–2025 · leading case:
In re Chinese Drywall Cases, 80 Va. Cir. 69 (Norfolk Cir. Ct. 2010).
In re Chinese Drywall Cases, 80 Va. Cir. 69 (Norfolk Cir. Ct. 2010).
· cites it 13× “The Court is persuaded that these cases satisfy the criteria enumerated in the Multiple Claimant Litigation Act, Va. Code § 8.01-267.1, and that the interests of the parties and the Court will be best served by conducting trials on a consolidated basis of groups that include…”
Bay Point Condo. Ass'n v. RML Corp., 52 Va. Cir. 432 (Norfolk Cir. Ct. 2000).
· cites it 9× “Rule 3:9A allows a person to be joined as a party in the action if (1) in his absence complete relief cannot be accorded among those already parties, or (2) he claims an interest relating to the subject of the action and is so situated that the disposition of the action in his…”
City of Chesapeake v. STATES SELF-INSURERS, 628 S.E.2d 539 (Va. 2006).
· cites it 2× “These cases were combined for pretrial proceedings under the Virginia Multiple Claimants Litigation Act, Code §§ 8.01-267.1 through -267.9. Cunningham sought recovery for, among other things, an alleged bodily injury due to the consumption of toxic drinking water provided by the…”
City of Chesapeake v. Cunningham, 604 S.E.2d 420 (Va. 2004).
· cites it 2× “These cases were combined for pretrial proceedings under the Virginia Multiple Claimants Litigation Act, Code § 8.01-267.1, et seq. Each plaintiff requested compensatory and punitive damages.”
Wright v. Eli Lilly & Co., 66 Va. Cir. 195 (Portsmouth Cir. Ct. 2004).
· cites it 9× “Furthermore, the health-care provider defendants suggest that it would be helpful for the Court to look to the factors in Va. Code §§ 8.01-267.1 and 8.01-267.5, though such factors are not binding.”
Gas Mart v. Bd. of Sup'rs of Loudoun Cnty., 611 S.E.2d 340 (Va. 2005).
· cites it 2× “By a decree, the trial court consolidated all of the suits pursuant to the Multiple Claimant Litigation Act, Code §§ 8.01-267.1 through - 267.9, and directed the formation of a Litigation Steering Committee (the LSC) to represent all complainants in the consolidated cases with…”
Doe v. Bruton Par. Church, 42 Va. Cir. 467 (Williamsburg and James Cir. Ct. 1997).
· cites it 7× “The matters before the court include demurrers to almost all counts of the SAMJ by various defendants, as well as to joinder under the Multiple Claimant Litigation Act, Va. Code Ann. §§ 8.01-267.1 to 8.01-267.9 (Supp.”
Protestant Episcopal Church v. TRURO CHURCH, 694 S.E.2d 555 (Va. 2010).
· cites it 2× “A three-judge panel appointed by this Court under the Multiple Claimant Litigation Act, Code §§ 8.01-267.1, et seq., consolidated all these cases in the Circuit Court of Fairfax County.”
Autumn Ridge v. Acordia of Virginia Ins., 613 S.E.2d 435 (Va. 2005).
· cites it 2× “t/a Acordia of Virginia (Acordia), under the Multiple Claimant Litigation Act, Code § 8.01-267.1 et seq. The limited partnerships asserted claims for negligence and breach of contract due to Acordia's failure to include them as named insureds on a builders risk insurance *437…”
Stevens v. Hosp. Auth., 42 Va. Cir. 321 (Richmond County Cir. Ct. 1997).
· cites it 2× “These actions have been consolidated for pretrial proceedings pursuant to the provisions of the Virginia Multiple Claimant Litigation Act, Code §§ 8.01-267.1 to 8.01-267.9, by order of this Court dated March 3,1997.”
Bond v. Baker Roofing Co., 81 Va. Cir. 439 (Norfolk Cir. Ct. 2010).
· cites it 28× “” Va. Code § 8.01-267.1. The statute instructs the Court to consider the following factors, among others, when determining whether separate civil actions should be consolidated: (i) the nature of the common questions of law or fact; (ii) the convenience of the parties,…”
— Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-267.1(1) — 2 cases
In re Chinese Drywall Cases, 80 Va. Cir. 69 (Norfolk Cir. Ct. 2010).
“The Court is persuaded that these cases satisfy the criteria enumerated in the Multiple Claimant Litigation Act, Va. Code § 8.01-267.1, and that the interests of the parties and the Court will be best served by conducting trials on a consolidated basis of groups that include…”
Bond v. Baker Roofing Co., 81 Va. Cir. 439 (Norfolk Cir. Ct. 2010).
“” Va. Code § 8.01-267.1. The statute instructs the Court to consider the following factors, among others, when determining whether separate civil actions should be consolidated: (i) the nature of the common questions of law or fact; (ii) the convenience of the parties,…”
— Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-267.1(2) — 1 case
Bond v. Baker Roofing Co., 81 Va. Cir. 439 (Norfolk Cir. Ct. 2010).
“” Va. Code § 8.01-267.1. The statute instructs the Court to consider the following factors, among others, when determining whether separate civil actions should be consolidated: (i) the nature of the common questions of law or fact; (ii) the convenience of the parties,…”
— Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-267.1(3) — 2 cases
In re Chinese Drywall Cases, 80 Va. Cir. 69 (Norfolk Cir. Ct. 2010).
“The Court is persuaded that these cases satisfy the criteria enumerated in the Multiple Claimant Litigation Act, Va. Code § 8.01-267.1, and that the interests of the parties and the Court will be best served by conducting trials on a consolidated basis of groups that include…”
Bond v. Baker Roofing Co., 81 Va. Cir. 439 (Norfolk Cir. Ct. 2010).
“” Va. Code § 8.01-267.1. The statute instructs the Court to consider the following factors, among others, when determining whether separate civil actions should be consolidated: (i) the nature of the common questions of law or fact; (ii) the convenience of the parties,…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.