## Facts

- Jaime Lopez, Arnold Daniels, Willie McKenzie, and Hilbert Gresham (Plaintiffs) sued the City of Irvington, New Jersey; the Irvington Police Department; Police Officer Alfredo Aleman; and Police Officer Christopher Burrell (Defendants) in federal court.
- Plaintiffs brought claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (and related theories), alleging excessive force during separate arrests in which Aleman used his police dog, “Bullet.”
- Plaintiffs also asserted municipal liability against the City and Police Department, alleging they failed to supervise and monitor the K-9 Unit and Aleman, allowing a recurring pattern of unconstitutional K-9 force.
- Plaintiffs alleged a common mode of conduct: during arrests, Aleman would order Bullet to “get” a suspect and bite, including in situations where the suspect was already under control, such as after being handcuffed.
- Lopez alleged that during his arrest Aleman kicked him, held him down while Bullet bit and tore flesh from his arm, and later—after Lopez was handcuffed and placed in a patrol car—Aleman released Bullet into the closed car where the dog attacked Lopez again.
- Daniels alleged he was arrested in the attic of an unoccupied house in connection with an unlawful entry and was subjected to an unjustified K-9 attack; Defendants disputed aspects of the arrest circumstances and Daniels’s compliance.
- McKenzie alleged he was apprehended after being seen exiting a stolen vehicle and that, after being handcuffed, Aleman ordered Bullet to attack him, causing serious injury.
- Gresham alleged he fled from police, that Aleman ordered Bullet to “get” him, and that he was attacked again after being handcuffed.
- Defendants moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 21 to sever Plaintiffs’ claims into separate trials, arguing the events occurred on different dates and that a joint trial would be unfairly prejudicial and confusing.

## Issues

1. Whether the court should sever the four plaintiffs’ claims under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 21, given that the arrests occurred in separate incidents but involved the same K-9 handler, the same dog, and overlapping municipal-liability allegations and proof.

## Decision

- The court denied Defendants’ Rule 21 motion to sever.
- The court found that the claims shared substantial common questions of law and fact because each incident centered on Aleman’s use of Bullet and Plaintiffs’ allegation of a pattern of excessive K-9 force.
- The court reasoned that evidence concerning K-9 training, supervision, departmental practices, and the municipal-liability theory would substantially overlap across Plaintiffs’ cases, making a single trial more efficient than multiple trials repeating the same proof.
- The court concluded that Defendants’ prejudice and jury-confusion concerns did not justify severance and could be addressed through ordinary trial tools such as limiting instructions and careful jury instructions.
- The court also recognized the risk of inconsistent outcomes on shared municipal-liability questions if the claims were tried separately.

## Legal Principles

- Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 21 allows a court to sever claims or parties to prevent unfair prejudice or to improve the efficient resolution of the action; the decision is committed to the trial court’s discretion.
- In deciding severance, courts consider whether there are common questions of law or fact, the extent of evidentiary overlap, the risk of jury confusion, and whether separate trials would waste judicial and party resources.
- When multiple plaintiffs allege similar constitutional violations by the same officer and assert related municipal-liability claims requiring proof of training, supervision, customs, or practices, overlapping proof may justify keeping the claims together for trial.
- Potential prejudice from trying multiple incidents together is often handled through evidentiary limits and instructions directing the jury to consider each plaintiff’s claim separately.

## Conclusion

The district court kept the four plaintiffs’ K-9 excessive-force claims in one trial, holding that the shared involvement of Officer Aleman and K-9 Bullet and the overlapping evidence on training, supervision, and municipal custom outweighed asserted prejudice, and that standard trial instructions could control any risk of confusion.


Lopez v. City of Irvington, 2008 WL 565776 (2008)