Dismiss a case twice in federal court—no problem, you can still file in California.

But dismiss a case in state court, and it’s gone forever.

Tim & Jeff cover these two holdings of the California Supreme Court, issued two weeks apart. The first in Doe v. Marysville Joint Unified School District, held that the two-dismissal rule in federal court does not apply in state court. Then in Maniago v. Desert Cardiology Consultants' Medical Group, the Court held that a voluntary dismissal with prejudice ended an action entirely despite the plaintiff's stated intent to preserve appellate rights.

Together, the cases stand for the proposition that a plaintiff's own choice of dismissal language controls, regardless of strategic declarations filed alongside it.

The episode also covers Wilson v. Johnson, clarifying that the five-year rule is satisfied when prospective jurors take the section 232(a) oath—even while hardship screening continues—and Chin v. DoorDash, where a majority found waiver of EFAA rights after a plaintiff strategically withheld a harassment claim through arbitration proceedings.

Tim agrees with Justice Wiley's dissent—this is forfeiture, not a waiver. Putting a steak on your plate at the buffet doesn’t “waive” a right to help yourself to the chicken, too. In the same way, litigating in real court doesn’t “waive” your right to arbitration. Does it violate public policy? Sure—which is where juridical doctrines like forfeiture come in. But there’s no intent to forgo anything, so it’s not a waiver.

Covered in the episode:

• The scope of FRCP 41's two-dismissal rule in California state court proceedings
• How voluntary dismissals interact with res judicata and claim preclusion
• When a jury-tried action is "brought to trial" for purposes of the five-year rule
• Waiver of EFAA rights when a harassment claim is withheld during arbitration proceedings
• The doctrinal distinction between waiver and forfeiture in the arbitration context

Listen to the full episode for a detailed breakdown of each decision and its practical implications for trial and appellate practice.