ADJ7393455 · October 14, 2026

The December 3, 2014 dismissal order with prejudice is final and bars further litigation against the Chiefs and their insurer by res judicata; the WCAB found no personal jurisdiction over the Chiefs due to the dismissal; the applicant's attempts to rejoin the Chiefs were barred by res judicata and timely objections by the Chiefs preserved their rights.

From the decision · page 2Based on our review of the record and for the reasons discussed below, as our decision after reconsideration, we will rescind the F&O and substitute a new F&O finding that the December 3, 2014 Order is final (Finding of Fact 5) and finding that there is no personal jurisdiction over the Chiefs in this case (Finding of Fact 6); and ordering correction of the clerical error in the December 3, 2014 Order Dismissing to identify Great Divide Insurance Company (Great Divide) as the insurer for the Chiefs (see Toccalino v. Worker’s Comp. Appeals Bd. (1982) 128 Cal.App.3d 543, 558 [47 Cal.Comp.Cases 145] [clerical errors may be corrected without further proceedings at any time]) (Order a) and that further litigation by applicant against the Chiefs and Great Divide as their insurance carrier is barred by res judicata (Order b). Finally, in the interest of clarity, we will add findings to conform to the parties’ stipulations at trial with respect to insurance coverage (Findings of Fact 2, 3, 4).

The December 3, 2014 Order Dismissing Party Defendant was entered with prejudice and is final.

Favours Defendant prevailed

This final dismissal order bars further litigation against the Chiefs and their insurer by res judicata.

From the decision · page 125. The December 3, 2014 Order Dismissing Party Defendant is final.

There is no personal jurisdiction over the Kansas City Chiefs in this case due to the dismissal order.

Favours Defendant prevailed

The dismissal order deprived the WCJ of personal jurisdiction over the Chiefs, barring further litigation.

From the decision · page 126. There is no personal jurisdiction over the Kansas City Chiefs in this case.

Applicant sought to rejoin the Chiefs after dismissal but was barred by res judicata.

Favours Defendant prevailed

Applicant's attempts to rejoin were barred because the dismissal was with prejudice and final, and the Chiefs timely objected preserving their rights.

Casa de Valley View Owner’s Assn. v. Stevenson (1985) 167 Cal.App.3d 1182

A voluntary dismissal of a portion of a lawsuit deprives the court only of personal jurisdiction over the dismissed party; the court retains subject matter jurisdiction over the controversy.

The December 3, 2014 dismissal order deprived the WCJ of personal jurisdiction over the Chiefs.

From the decision · page 7Stevenson (1985) 167 Cal.App.3d 1182, 1192.) Subject matter jurisdiction “cannot be conferred by consent, waiver, or estoppel,...” (Viejo Bancorp, Inc. v. Wood (1989) 217 Cal.App.3d 200, 207.) Accordingly, an order issued after voluntary dismissal of an entire action is void on its face for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and may be set aside at any time; the doctrine of waiver does not apply. (See Harris v. Billings (1993) 16 Cal.App.4th 1396, 1405.) However, a voluntary dismissal of a portion of a lawsuit, as opposed to a voluntary dismissal of the entire case, deprives the court only of personal jurisdiction over the dismissed party or parties; the court retains subject matter jurisdiction over the controversy. (Noble v.

Boeken v. Philip Morris USA, Inc. (2010) 48 Cal.4th 788

A voluntary dismissal with prejudice is a final order that bars further litigation on the same subject matter by res judicata.

The December 3, 2014 dismissal order with prejudice was final and barred further litigation against the Chiefs and their insurer.

From the decision · page 7(Boeken v. Philip Morris USA, Inc. (2010) 48 Cal.4th 788, 793.) Accordingly, the doctrine of res judicata bars further litigation of issues after a voluntary dismissal with prejudice to the same extent it does after a judgment on the merits. 4 (Boeken, supra, 48 Cal.4th at p. 793; Torrey Pines, supra, 216 Cal.App.3d at p. 821; Sears v. DeMota (1958) 157 Cal.App.2d 216, 222.) Res judicata precludes further litigation of issues when the same issue has already been litigated and finally decided in a case involving the same parties. (Pac. Coast Medical Enters. v. Dep’t. of Benefit Payments (1983) 140 Cal.App.3d 197, 214, quoting Henn v. Henn (1980) 26 Cal.3d 323, 329-330.) Res judicata is not jurisdictional, and, as such, it may be waived if not properly raised by pleading or evidence. (Busick v. Workmen’s Comp. Appeals Bd. (1972) 7 Cal.3d 967, 977 [37 Cal.Comp.Cases 641].) A voluntary dismissal of an entire action deprives the court of subject matter jurisdiction as well as personal jurisdiction of the parties. (Casa de Valley View Owner’s Assn. v.