1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United 

States District 

Court

For the Northern District of California 

**E-filed 06/21/2010** 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 

CHARLES GILLIS, et al., 

 Plaintiffs, 

 v. 

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN 

FRANCISCO, et al. 

 Defendants. 

____________________________________/

No. C 08-3871 RS 

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 

SEVER AND DENYING MOTION TO 

BIFURCATE AND STAY 

Plaintiffs filed this action contending their civil rights were violated when they were arrested 

by San Francisco Police officers on the night of July 27, 2007, as suspects in a robbery that had just 

taken place nearby. Plaintiffs subsequently filed an amended complaint that adds police officer Juan 

Gala as a defendant and alleges that he unlawfully detained and searched plaintiffs on three 

occasions other than July 27, 2007. It is undisputed that Officer Gala was not present at, and did not 

participate in, the July 27th arrest. The claims against Officer Gala are set out in three “causes of 

action” that were simply appended to what had been alleged in the prior complaint; there are no 

allegations that in any way tie those claims or those alleged events to the July 27th arrest. 

 Defendants move to sever the claims against Officer Gala. The motion is granted. Rule 

20(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure governs the joinder of multiple defendants in one 

action. It requires that the claims against all defendants arise “out of the same transaction, 

Case 3:08-cv-03871-RS Document 75 Filed 06/21/10 Page 1 of 2
2 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United 

States District 

Court

For the Northern District of California 

occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences.” Plaintiffs’ argument that the conduct of 

officer Gala is part of a “pattern” of unlawful police conduct in common with the events of July 27, 

2007 is insufficient to support the joinder, particularly given that the complaint does not allege facts 

to support the existence of any such pattern. Accordingly, the 13th, 14th, and 15th claims for relief 

(denominated as “causes of action” in the amended complaint) are hereby severed. The Clerk is 

directed to open a new file entitled Charles Gillis, et al. v. Juan Gala, and to file a copy of the 

amended complaint and this order therein. The new action shall be randomly assigned, as there is 

no basis to find it to be a related case to this one. 

Defendants further move to bifurcate the Monell claims1 in this action and to stay discovery 

thereon. Although similar motions have been granted in this Court, defendants have failed to make 

a compelling showing that such bifurcation at this juncture would serve the interests of justice and 

efficient case management. Accordingly, the motion to bifurcate and stay is denied. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: 06/21/2010 

RICHARD SEEBORG 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

 

1 Monell v. New York City Dept. of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978). 

Case 3:08-cv-03871-RS Document 75 Filed 06/21/10 Page 2 of 2