Supreme Court Allows MJUSD Lawsuit to Proceed
Jul 14, 2026 10:24AM ● By Shamaya Sutton
Logo courtesy of Marysville Joint Unified School District
MARYSVILLE, CA (MPG) - The California Supreme Court has cleared the way for a lawsuit against the Marysville Joint Unified School District to continue, reversing lower court rulings that had dismissed the case on procedural grounds.
In a unanimous opinion filed July 2, the state's high court ruled that a federal procedural rule known as the "two-dismissal rule" did not prevent former Kynoch Elementary School students from pursuing state-law claims in California court.
The case, Doe v. Marysville Joint Unified School District, involves seven former students who allege former Kynoch Elementary School counselor William Babcock sexually assaulted them between 1993 and 2001. According to the opinion, the alleged assaults occurred at school, including in Babcock's office during counseling sessions.
The ruling does not determine whether the allegations are true or whether the district is liable. Instead, the decision answers a narrower legal question: whether the plaintiffs were barred from continuing their lawsuit because they had previously filed and voluntarily dismissed similar cases.
According to the opinion, the plaintiffs first filed lawsuits in Yuba County Superior Court in 2020. Those cases were voluntarily dismissed without prejudice, a legal term meaning the claims were not finally decided and could generally be refiled later.
On the same day those state court dismissals were requested, the plaintiffs filed a similar case in federal court. That complaint included state-law claims as well as claims under Title IX and federal civil rights law.
Marysville Joint Unified moved to dismiss the federal case, arguing in part that sovereign immunity barred most of the claims in federal court. Before that motion was heard, the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the federal case as well. The opinion does not state why the plaintiffs chose to dismiss the earlier actions.
The plaintiffs then filed the current state case in March 2021, first in Ventura County Superior Court. The case was later transferred to Yuba County. Marysville Joint Unified argued the lawsuit should be dismissed under the federal two-dismissal rule, which can treat a second voluntary dismissal as an adjudication on the merits. The Yuba County Superior Court agreed and dismissed the case. In 2023, a divided Third District Court of Appeal affirmed that ruling.
The California Supreme Court disagreed.
"Rule 41(a)(1)(B) is a rule of federal procedure that, when triggered, bars the plaintiff from filing the same claims in federal court," Justice Kelli Evans wrote for the court. "It is not a broader rule of claim preclusion and thus does not bar a subsequent action in state court."
The court concluded that even if the federal rule prevents plaintiffs from refiling the same claims in federal court, it does not automatically prevent them from pursuing state-law claims in California courts. The case will now return to the lower court for further proceedings.
The allegations are part of litigation connected to Babcock, who was arrested in 2002 on multiple child molestation-related charges. Previous reporting said Babcock pleaded guilty to eight felony counts involving unlawful sexual acts with minors and one misdemeanor count involving annoying or molesting children. He was sentenced to 22 years in state prison. The 2017 report also said Babcock's actions led to multiple lawsuits against Marysville Joint Unified, with some cases settling for hundreds of thousands of dollars.
Because the Supreme Court's ruling addressed only a procedural issue, Marysville Joint Unified may still raise defenses as the case returns to the trial court. The opinion does not make findings about the underlying allegations.
The Marysville Joint Unified School District said in a statement that it is aware of the allegations outlined in the matter, which involve events "reported to have occurred more than 25 years ago."
"Because this concerns active litigation, the District cannot provide further comment on ongoing legal proceedings," the district said.















