Short answer. Yes. Rule 36, Section 4 lets the court render a several judgment against one or more defendants when a several judgment is proper, while the action proceeds against the remaining defendants. This is common where the defendants' liability to the plaintiff does not have to be resolved all at the same time.

What the law says

In an action against several defendants, the court may, when a several judgment is proper, render judgment against one or more of them, leaving the action to proceed against the others.

Rule 36, Section 4 — Several judgments. Read the full provision →

What a several judgment is

A several judgment resolves a case as to one or more, but not all, of several defendants who were sued together in the same action. Rather than waiting until every defendant's liability has been fully thrashed out at the same time, the court is allowed to dispose of the claim against whichever defendant or defendants are ready for judgment, while the case as a whole keeps moving. This is different from a joint judgment that would have to cover everyone at once, and it is only proper where the case genuinely allows the defendants' positions to be separated out — meaning their liability to the plaintiff is not so intertwined that one cannot fairly be decided without the other.

What happens to the remaining defendants

Rendering a several judgment against some defendants does not close the file on the case as a whole. The action simply continues against whichever defendants were not covered by that judgment, following the normal course of pleadings, trial, and eventual judgment for their part of the dispute, exactly as if the several judgment had never been entered against the others. This gives a plaintiff facing several defendants a faster route to at least partial relief, instead of one delayed defendant holding up recovery against everyone else.

Why this matters practically

This mechanism keeps a multi-defendant lawsuit from being held hostage by whichever defendant's part of the case happens to take the longest to resolve, whether because of delay, absence, or a separate defense that needs more time to litigate. A plaintiff who has already proven a claim against one defendant does not have to wait indefinitely on proceedings that concern only the others before getting relief against the one already resolved. It also spares the court from having to manage every defendant's schedule and defenses as a single, indivisible block before anyone sees a result.

When a several judgment is not proper

Section 4 conditions this option on a several judgment actually being proper, which means the defendants' obligations to the plaintiff have to be capable of being separated in the first place. Where the defendants are solidarily or jointly liable in a way that makes their obligations legally inseparable from each other, or where a full resolution genuinely requires deciding every defendant's liability together to avoid inconsistent outcomes on the same set of facts, entering judgment against just one of them may not be appropriate. The court's discretion to render a several judgment is therefore tied to whether the underlying claims genuinely permit that kind of separation, not simply to whether one defendant's case happens to be ready first.

Related provisions

Note. Statute text quoted on this page is reproduced from the official enactment and is linked to the full provision. The explanation around it is general legal information from Vivas & Nobles Law Office, not legal advice. Whether it applies to your situation depends on facts only a lawyer reviewing them can assess.