Filed 9/18/26 Doe v. Marysville Joint Unified School District CA3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for
publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication
or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
(Yuba)
JOHN HR DOE et al., C095446
Plaintiffs and Appellants,
(Super. Ct. No. CVPO2100697)
v.
ON REMAND
MARYSVILLE JOINT UNIFIED SCHOOL
DISTRICT,
Defendant and Respondent.
John HR Doe filed and dismissed a state court action against the Marysville Joint
Unified School District (the School District). Other Does filed and dismissed their own
state court action against the School District. After that, John HR Doe and the other Does
(collectively the Doe plaintiffs) filed and dismissed a federal court action. The Doe
plaintiffs then filed the instant state court action, their third action against the School
District. All the lawsuits alleged that William Babcock, a counselor at an elementary
school in the School District in the 1990’s and 2000’s, committed sexual misconduct
causing the Doe plaintiffs to sustain injury and damages.
In this third action, the trial court sustained the School District’s demurrer and
dismissed the Doe plaintiffs’ complaint, ruling that under rule 41(a)(1)(B) of the Federal
1
Rules of Civil Procedure (28 U.S.C.),1 the Doe plaintiffs’ dismissal of the second action
in federal court constituted res judicata.
In our prior opinion, a majority of the panel affirmed the order of dismissal,
but the California Supreme Court reversed and remanded the matter back to this court
for further proceedings. (Doe v. Marysville Joint Unified School Dist. (2023)
98 Cal.App.5th 95, 110, revd. with directions Doe v. Marysville Joint Unified School
Dist. (2026) 20 Cal.5th 68, 89-90 (Doe).) Having reconsidered the matter in light of Doe,
we will reverse the order of dismissal and remand the matter to the trial court with
directions to overrule the School District’s demurrer.
DISCUSSION2
In the first part of our prior opinion, we rejected the Doe plaintiffs’ contention that
the federal court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over their claims. Doe does not
impact that analysis or conclusion. However, because we reverse for a different reason,
we need not address this contention.
Doe is dispositive as to the second part of this court’s prior majority opinion.
Although a majority of this panel previously affirmed the trial court’s order of dismissal,
concluding that res judicata barred the Doe plaintiffs’ claims in this action because the
federal action was based on federal question jurisdiction and federal law deemed the
second dismissal claim preclusive, the California Supreme Court reversed. (Doe v.
Marysville Joint Unified School Dist., supra, 98 Cal.App.5th at p. 110, revd. 20 Cal.5th
at pp. 89-90.) It held that rule 41(a)(1)(B) is not a rule of claim preclusion, and although
some dismissals denominated “ ‘on the merits’ ” by rule 41 have claim-preclusive effect,
1 Undesignated rule references are to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (28 U.S.C.).
2 The background is known to the parties and set forth in Doe, supra, 20 Cal.5th
at pp. 74-76.
2
that is based on the federal common law rules of claim preclusion. (Doe, at p. 89.) The
Supreme Court concluded that under either the federal or state rules of claim preclusion,
the Doe plaintiffs’ voluntary dismissal of their federal action does not bar the filing of the
instant action raising state law claims in state court. (Doe, at pp. 74, 89.)
In light of Doe, we will reverse the trial court’s order of dismissal and remand the
matter to the trial court with directions to overrule the School District’s demurrer.
DISPOSITION
The judgment (order of dismissal) is reversed and the matter is remanded to the
trial court with directions to overrule the School District’s demurrer. The Doe plaintiffs
are awarded their costs on appeal. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.278(a).)
/S/
MAURO, Acting P. J.
We concur:
/S/
MESIWALA, J.
/S/
WISEMAN, J.*
* Retired Associate Justice of the Court of Appeal, Fifth Appellate District, assigned
by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.
3