(a) Except as otherwise provided in Subsection (c), upon motion of a party to an agreement to arbitrate or to an arbitration proceeding, the court may order consolidation of separate arbitration proceedings as to all or some of the claims if:

(1) there are separate agreements to arbitrate or separate arbitration proceedings between the same persons or one of them is a party to a separate agreement to arbitrate or a separate arbitration proceeding with a third person;

(2) the claims subject to the agreements to arbitrate arise in substantial part from the same transaction or series of related transactions;

(3) the existence of a common issue of law or fact creates the possibility of conflicting decisions in the separate arbitration proceedings; and

(4) prejudice resulting from a failure to consolidate is not outweighed by the risk of undue delay or prejudice to the rights of or hardship to parties opposing consolidation.

(b) The court may order consolidation of separate arbitration proceedings as to some claims and allow other claims to be resolved in separate arbitration proceedings.

(c) The court may not order consolidation of the claims of a party to an agreement to arbitrate if the agreement prohibits consolidation.

History: Laws 2001, ch. 227, § 11.

Compiler's note. — Laws 2002, ch. 227, § 33 repealed the former Uniform Arbitration Act, Sections 44-7-1 to 44-7-22 NMSA 1978, enacted by Laws 1971, ch. 168, §23. The Uniform Arbitration Act compiled as 44-7A-1 to 44-7A-32 NMSA 1978 was enacted effective July 1, 2001.

No judicial power to compel consolidated arbitration. — Absent express statutory authorization or agreement of all concerned parties, district court had no power to compel consolidated arbitration. Pueblo of Laguna v. Cillessen & Son, 1984-NMSC-060, 101 N.M. 341, 682 P.2d 197.

Consolidation may be ordered even if no arbitration proceeding is pending, provided there are agreements to arbitrate. Lyndoe v. D.R. Horton, Inc., 2012-NMCA-103, 287 P.3d 357.

The question of whether to consolidate separate arbitrations is a threshold question for the district court and does not require definitive proof. Lyndoe v. D.R. Horton, Inc., 2012-NMCA-103, 287 P.3d 357.

Elements supporting consolidation were satisfied. — Where the owners of homes asked the district court to compel defendants to litigate their claims in a consolidated arbitration; the dispute was subject to the arbitration clause in the owners' purchase agreements; the owners' claims arose out of their purchase of homes built and sold by defendants in the same subdivision; defendants based the subdivision's site development plan on a geotechnical report prepared by a consultant employed by defendants; and the owners alleged that they experienced similar deficiencies in the homes, many of which were caused by the settlement of subsurface soils, that their claims shared common issues involving the settlement of their homes and similar damages, that multiple separate arbitrations could result in conflicting decisions, that any prejudice to defendants did not outweigh the potential prejudice of conflicting outcomes that could result from a failure to consolidate, and that a consolidated proceeding would be more efficient than separate proceedings, the owners satisfied all of the elements required for consolidation, and the district court did not abuse its discretion by consolidating the arbitrations between the owners and defendants. Lyndoe v. D.R. Horton, Inc., 2012-NMCA-103, 287 P.3d 357.

Am. Jur. 2d, A.L.R. and C.J.S. references. — 4 Am. Jur. 2d Alternative Dispute Resolution § 178.

Consolidation by federal court of arbitration proceedings brought under Federal Arbitration Act (9 USCS § 4), 104 A.L.R. Fed. 251.