At a case conference, the court considered whether three related actions arising from a construction project should be heard one after another and proceed on a common timetable.
The actions involved claims for construction management services, oppression remedies, and consulting services, with overlapping allegations of delay and cost overruns.
The court ordered the actions to proceed together under Rule 6.01(1), finding they shared common questions of fact and law, and that separate proceedings risked inconsistent findings.
An alternative request to sever counterclaims under Rule 6.1.01 was dismissed.
