In Doe v. Marysville Joint Unified School District, the Supreme Court today holds a federal rule that makes a certain voluntary dismissal of a federal lawsuit to be with prejudice doesn’t preclude a plaintiff from subsequently filing the action in a California court. The ruling revives a case alleging the plaintiffs were sexually assaulted by a school counselor when they were elementary school students.
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure rule 41(a)(1)(B) provides a voluntary dismissal of a federal case is generally “without prejudice,” but, “if the plaintiff previously dismissed any federal- or state-court action based on or including the same claim, a notice of dismissal operates as an adjudication on the merits.” In Doe, the plaintiffs dismissed their federal lawsuit after having earlier dismissed a California superior court action.
The court’s unanimous opinion by Justice Evans applies the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Semtek Int’l Inc. v. Lockheed Martin Corp. (2001) 531 U.S. 497 and concludes Rule 41(a)(1)(B) is one “of federal procedure that, when triggered, bars the plaintiff from filing the same claims in federal court. It is not a broader rule of claim preclusion and thus does not bar a subsequent action in state court.”
The court reverses the Third District’s 2-1 published opinion, which had disagreed with the Sixth District’s decision in Gray v. La Salle Bank (2023) 95 Cal.App.5th 932. The Supreme Court denied review in Gray.
Horvitz & Levy is Supreme Court counsel for the school district.
