OPINION
This mandamus action by defendant/Relator, Dal-Briar Corporation against Respondents Judge William Baskette, Jr., *614 Judge Sam Callan and Judge Sam Paxson, 1 presents an issue of first impression. The petition requests that mandamus issue ordering three cases deconsolidated, following the granting of plaintiffs’ motion for consolidated trial in three distinct lawsuits аgainst defendant. We conditionally grant the writ.
BACKGROUND
Three plaintiffs, all represented by the same counsel and all former employees of Relator Dal-Briar Corporation, a talc mine in Culberson County, Texas, brought suit under Article 8307c of the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act. Tex.Rev.Civ.Stat.Ann. art. 8307c (Vernon Pamph.1992). All plaintiffs allege that Dal-Briar terminated their employment as part of a common scheme or practice to discriminate against workers who filed a claim for workers’ compensation. The underlying facts of each case differ substantially. The respective plaintiffs were tеrminated (or in one case perhaps voluntarily quit) in July 1988, August 1988 and November 1989. Dal-Briar urges that its defensive theories in each case are very different. Plaintiffs urge that the common thread of each workers’ termination after making a compensation claim is enough to justify consolidation, particularly because the cases are to be tried in a rural county of sparse population, and because one trial court has already ruled that evidence of the other terminations (together with testimony from two former supervisors and additional former employees who will allege their terminations were motivated by filing compensation claims) will be admissible in the trial of one plaintiff’s claim.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
As a reviewing court, we may issue a writ of mandamus only to correct a “clear abuse of discretion” committed by the trial court. This occurs where the trial court reaches a decision sо arbitrary and unreasonable as to amount to clear and prejudicial error.
Walker v. Packer,
Where the trial court’s discretion is addressed to a factual issue, the reviewing court cannot substitute its own judgment for that of the trial court.
Flores v. Fourth Court of Appeals,
Our review of the trial court’s determination of controlling legal principles, on the other hand, requires much less defеrence. A trial court possesses no discretion to determine what the law is. A clear failure of the trial court to correctly analyze or apply the law will constitute an abuse of discretion with resulting reversal by extraordinary writ.
Walker,
The ease before us is one in which the trial court has misapplied the legal principles regarding consolidation of independent cases. We recognize that this is a case where the trial court was without guiding precedent in a rapidly developing area of law, and that the rules of consolidation are generally liberal, but we are neverthеless compelled to hold that its consolidation order has deprived defendant of important rights, and that if forced to try the cases as consolidated, Dal-Briar will be without adequate remedy at law. 2
*615 FACTS
In November 1988, plaintiffs Margie Garcia and Manuel Apodaca filed separate lawsuits against Dal-Briar in the 205th District Court of Culberson County, cause numbers 3550 and 3551, respectively, each alleging they had been terminated in violation of their rights under Article 8307c. In December 1989, plaintiff David Durbin filed his lawsuit in the 210th District Court of Culberson County, cause number 3597, alleging violations of both Article 8307c and the federal Mine Safety and Hеalth Act. Durbin’s case was removed to federal court, where it remained until he voluntarily dismissed the second claim. It was then remanded to state court.
In January 1992, trial began in the Dur-bin case. The trial court disqualified a juror on the second day, however, and a mistrial was declared. On January 17, 1992, the three plaintiffs filed a joint motion to consolidate their cases. Dal-Briar opposed the motion. The grounds for the motion were that all three lawsuits involved “common issues of fact, common parties, common witnesses, and common proof against the same Defendant,” and that a joint trial would “avoid delay and ... eliminate repetition of testimony thereby avoiding unnecessary costs and expenses.” Dal-Briar opposed consolidation, arguing that trying the three suits together would “create a probability of jury confusion and prejudice to Dal-Briar so substantial as to overwhelm any semblance of judicial economy which might result.” The motion was heard and granted by Respondent Baskette on January 27, 1992, and all three cases were consolidated in the 210th Judicial District Court.
CONSOLIDATION
Texas Rules of Civil Procedure 174(a) governs the consolidation of actions. It provides:
Consolidation. When actions involving a common question of law or fact are pending before the court, it may order a joint hearing or trial of any or all the matters in issue in the actions; it may order all the actions consolidated; and it may make such orders concerning proceedings therein as may tend to avoid unnecessary costs or delay.
The rule is idеntical to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 42. Cases interpreting the federal rule, therefore, are helpful to us in determining the issue before us here.
Consolidation is a matter within the broad discretion of the trial court, but it is not without limiting factors. In
Womack v. Berry,
The use of the permissive word “may” imports the exercise of discretion in such matters. But the court is not vested with unlimited discretion, and is required to exercise а sound and legal discretion within limits created by the circumstances of the particular case. The express purpose of the rule is to further convenience and avoid prejudice, and thus promote the ends of justice. When all of the facts and circumstances of the case unquestionably require a separate trial to prevent manifest injustice, and there is no fact or circumstance supporting or tending to support a contrary conclusion, and the legal rights of the parties will not be prejudiced thereby, there is no room for the exercise of discretion. Womack,291 S.W.2d at 683 .
We apply the same legal principles in considering the propriety of consolidation under Rule 174 as apply to the ordering of separate trials under that authority.
The judicial economy and convenience that may be gained by consolidation must be balanced against the likelihoоd that consolidation may result in delay, prejudice or jury confusion. See
Brentwood Financial Corporation v. Lamprecht,
736
*616
S.W.2d 836, 839 (Tex.App.—San Antonio 1987, writ ref'd n.r.e.);
Bank of Montreal v. Eagle Associates,
Plaintiffs’ allegation that a common policy or practice of discrimination by Dal-Briar against workers’ compensation claimants does not vitiate our concern that substantial prejudice and jury confusion will result from a consolidated trial here. Even if a common practice of discrimination is proven by plaintiffs, each must still prove, individually, that he or she was a victim of that practice. Each act sued upon must be established by its own facts and circumstances, and the existence of similar acts, or even proof of a policy consistent with the act sued upon, will not suffice to establish liability as to any individual.
Texas Osage Co-operative Royalty Pool v. Cruze,
Dal-Briar asks us to consider the opinions of two federal district courts which refused to consolidate employment discrimination claims under Federal Rules of Civil Proсedure 42,
Arroyo v. Chardon,
[Rjesult to the detriment of the jury’s function to weigh and consider impartially the evidence presented in each particular case and it may result in prejudice to the parties’ right to a fair day in court.
[[Image here]]
[T]he rights of the parties would not be adequately protected.90 F.R.D. at 606 .
Similarly, in
Henderson,
the court found that consolidation would not be appropriate because “the individual questions of fact and law in each case outweigh the common,_”
NO ADEQUATE REMEDY BY APPEAL
Finally, we must decide whether Dal-Briar has an adequate remedy on appeal. Mandamus will not issue where thеre is a clear and adequate remedy at law, such as a normal appeal.
Walker,
Relator Dal-Briar argues that once the consolidated trial is held, there will be no way to untangle how or whether prejudice and confusion infected the jury’s deliberations. The jury will simply return a verdict upon each claim, and whether jurors reached any individual verdict because of evidence admitted as relevant to another case; or whether jurors believed that because three plaintiffs alleged the same wrongs, there must be some misdeeds by Dal-Briar based upon sheer numbers; or whether the jury simply hesitated to return a verdict for one plaintiff without finding for all three, will never be ascertainable. 5 The chance of obtaining meaningful appellate review on the propriety of consolidation is, therefore, negligible. We find that Dal-Briar has met the requirement of showing an imminent loss of substantiаl rights, which cannot be cured by ordinary appellate remedies.
CONCLUSION
We conclude that the facts and circumstances of these cases mandate against consolidation. Any advantage gained in judicial economy or avoidance of repetitive costs is so far outweighed by the danger that Dal-Briar will be unable to obtain a fair trial, that the balance leaves no room for discretion and the order of consolidation under these circumstances was a violation of a plain legal duty.
We emphasize that we conditionally grant the writ of mandamus; we will not issue any writ without first giving the trial court the opportunity to act. We also wish to acknowledge that consolidation here was no doubt ordered with the best of intentions: we certainly sympathize with the unique difficulties inherent in litigating multiple cases on similar legal theories against a single defendant in a rural venue with a limited jury pool. Wе are compelled to conclude, nevertheless, that Dal-Briar is just as entitled to separate trials, as free as possible from the threat of jury confusion or prejudice, as is any urban defendant.
The respondent judges are directed to enter an order vacating the January 27, 1992 order which consolidated cause number 3597 (filed in the 210th District Court) with cause number 3550 and cause number 3551 (both filed in the 205th District Court). It is anticipated that Judge Baskette, Judge Callan and Judge Paxson will comply with the opinion of this Court; should they fail to do so, the Clerk of this Court shall issue the writ of mandamus.
Notes
. Judge Baskette, as visiting judge, entered the cоnsolidation order complained of here. Judges Callan and Paxson are, respectively, the permanent judges of the 205th and 210th Judicial District Courts of Culberson County, Texas. Because only the permanent judge of a court has authority to act on behalf of the district court, all three judges are nаmed as respondents.
Hoggard
v.
Snodgrass,
. Plaintiffs, on the other hand, will suffer little if mandamus issues here. The first of the three plaintiffs is already set for trial; the trial court has scheduled either the consolidated case or Durbin v. Dal-Briar, cause number 3597, to be tried on June 1, 1992, depending upon the outcome of this proceeding. This Court has denied Dal-Briar's motion to stay proceedings and anticipates that the first of the three Article 8307c cases will be tried June 1, with the two others to *615 follow promptly. The deconsolidation of the three cases, moreover, deprives defendant of one very thorny appellate issue, should onе or more of the plaintiffs here prevail at their individual trials.
. This is not to say that evidence of other alleged incidents of discrimination will not be admissible in the individual trials under Tex. R.Civ.Evid. 404(b), 406 or some other relevant theory. Indeed, all parties are operating here under the assumption that such evidence will bе admitted.
. We acknowledge that these are district court cases, not cases where an appellate court reviewed an action taken by the trial judge. Nevertheless, the reasoning is sound and applicable here.
. This is particularly true in light of Tex.R.Civ.P. 327(b), which prohibits inquiry into the internal deliberations of or influences on the jury.