Beaulieu et al v. City of Lawrence et al

Filing 81

Judge Richard G. Stearns: ORDER entered granting 48 Motion to Bifurcate. The court also dismisses all claims against Chief John Romero insofar as he is named in his individual capacity. (Zierk, Marsha)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
CIVIL ACTION NO. 09-CV-11782-RGS
DAVID BEAULIEU, LISA BEAULIEU,
MARIO BEAULIEU, SR., and
TANYA WARREN
v.
CITY OF LAWRENCE, et al
ORDER ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTION
TO BIFURCATE TRIAL
May 17, 2011
STEARNS, D.J.
The motion to bifurcate the trial of the claims against the individual defendants
from the claims against the municipality and defendants who are named in their official
capacities will be ALLOWED. The court is cognizant of the fact that at least four
federal civil rights cases are pending in this court (three in this session) involving a
single police officer defendant (Wilcox) as their catalyst. One of these cases (Alicea)
has been resolved by a verdict favorable to the plaintiff on the claims against Wilcox
personally. For reasons of judicial economy, it makes sense to sort out all claims of
individual liability and then, if necessary, convene a single trial involving all successful

plaintiffs on the issue of Monell liability.1 The court notes that plaintiffs have stipulated
to the dismissal of all claims against former Mayor Michael Sullivan. The court will
further dismiss all claims against Chief John Romero in his official capacity as the
Second Amended Complaint (as corrected) pleads no facts against Romero personally
that suggest “a plausible entitlement to relief.” See Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550
U.S. 544, 559 (2007).
ORDER
For the foregoing reason, defendants’ Motion to Bifurcate Trial is ALLOWED.
The Court further orders that consistent with the parties’ stipulation, all claims against
Michael Sullivan are DISMISSED with prejudice. All claims against Chief John
Romero are also DISMISSED by the court insofar as he is named in his individual
capacity.2

SO ORDERED.
/s/ Richard G. Stearns
________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

1

As in the Alicea matter, this is not a case where an exception to the Heller rule might apply.
See Los Angeles v. Heller, 475 U.S. 796, 799 (1986) (per curiam) (verdict in favor of defendant
officer on plaintiff’s excessive force claim precluded liability on the part of his supervisors and
employer).
2

The court assumes that this was the intent of the Stipulation of Dismissal filed by the parties,
but the wording of the Stipulation with regard to Chief Romero is less than clear.
2