Short answer. Yes. Section 2 lets the court, in furtherance of convenience or to avoid prejudice, order a separate trial of any claim, cross-claim, counterclaim, or third-party complaint, or of any separate issue, or of any number of claims, cross-claims, counterclaims, third-party complaints, or issues.
What the law says
The court, in furtherance of convenience or to avoid prejudice, may order a separate trial of any claim, cross-claim, counterclaim, or third-party complaint, or of any separate issue or of any number of claims, cross[-]claims, counterclaims, third-party complaints or issues.
Rule 31, Section 2 — Separate trials. Read the full provision →
The two justifications
The court's power to sever is tied to two independent grounds: furthering convenience, or avoiding prejudice. Either ground on its own is enough to support an order for separate trials — the court does not need both to be present. Convenience typically means keeping the proceedings manageable and efficient, while avoiding prejudice means preventing one claim's evidence or issues from unfairly coloring the fact-finder's view of another, unrelated claim bundled into the same case.
What can be severed
The list of what may be severed is broad: any single claim, cross-claim, counterclaim, or third-party complaint, any separate issue within those, or any number or combination of these — giving the court real flexibility to isolate whatever slice of a tangled case makes sense to try apart from the rest. The court is not limited to an all-or-nothing choice between trying everything together or splitting the entire case in two.
Why this tool matters
Complex cases with many interlocking claims — a main claim, a counterclaim, and a third-party complaint all arising from related but distinct facts — can become unmanageable, or unfairly prejudicial to one party, if tried together in a single proceeding. Evidence relevant only to the third-party complaint, for instance, might confuse the issues on the main claim, or unduly extend a trial that would otherwise be straightforward. Severance under Section 2 lets the court untangle these claims and try each on its own footing.
Costs and case management benefits
Beyond avoiding prejudice, severance can also serve ordinary case-management goals: a court managing a crowded docket may find it more efficient to resolve a self-contained issue or claim first, potentially narrowing or even mooting the rest of the case before a lengthy combined trial is needed. Because the standard is discretionary rather than mandatory, the court weighs these practical benefits against any inconvenience to the parties before ordering separate trials. The power to sever does not create separate cases in the formal sense; the claims remain part of the same action even after severance, so a single case number and a single eventual judgment can still tie the separately tried pieces back together.