Particularly, Countrywide Monetary argued the newest Bank’s section 25504 claim is actually an equivalent reason for action as the Point fifteen claim according to the number 1 rights’ theory. Centered on Nationwide Monetary, the lending company needed to hang they accountable from the Credit Suisse action while the a control individual to have alleged misrepresentations in the [domestic financial-backed securities] providing data files and in the declaratory relief action, the lending company seeks to hold [Nationwide Financial] accountable as a processing person for the very same so-called misrepresentations in the exact same ? providing data files. Countrywide Economic conceded this new judge concepts in both cases was in fact some other, but debated the financial institution alleged a ticket of the same number 1 best-this new asserted directly to offering data free of material misrepresentations; and, also, claims in procedures to have suffered an equivalent spoil as the due to [Countrywide’s Financial’s] so-called misconduct.
Countrywide Economic demurred into the surgical revised declaratory rescue criticism, fighting res judicata barred this new Bank’s point 25504 claim since Financial are impermissibly seeking relitigate a cause of step which had been overlooked that have prejudice inside a prior action between your same activities
In addition, the lending company debated there’s no finally wisdom for the deserves regarding Borrowing from the bank Suisse action as the claims for each securitization under consideration inside the Borrowing Suisse have been element of a single reason behind action to have reason for res judicata. While the Lender informed me, a lot of the Bank’s says with the those people securities in the Credit Suisse action are pending. Thus, there’ve been no latest view towards the deserves of the Bank’s entire reason for step to the all four securities on Credit Suisse step which might be and the topic of this[.] 5
Inside the opposition, the financial institution contended the fresh area 25504 claim they asserted in the declaratory recovery action are distinctive from the fresh claims one [it] willingly ignored into the Borrowing Suisse hence res judicata didn’t pub it away from saying some other states around a new statute
New court noticed, [t]the guy actual question we have found if or not what was disregarded is the same first right as to what loan places Avondale is claimed here [regarding declaratory relief action]. Then the courtroom responded practical question in the affirmative. It informed me, the new Securities Operate and you may parts 25401 and 25501 render handle individuals in control beneath the same situations ? without having any significant difference in federal strategy or perhaps the condition scheme? As well as the California statute isnt materially distinct from brand new government statute. The fresh judge continued, a broad style within the preclusive effect jurisprudence is that the [c]ourt isnt bound by the format, or perhaps the pleadings, or the articulation from the reasons for action. Put differently ? you don’t evaluate factors that cause action ? or areas of cause[s] of action. You are free to the center of what actually is happening. Therefore appears to me that heart of what actually is happening, out of this position ? is actually handle individual responsibility. One to not as much as a national statute and one around your state law. Without matter the way you ask they or exactly what the series try, ? it is the same in both cases.
I feedback de novo brand new court’s buy sustaining Countrywide’s demurrer versus get off so you’re able to amend. (House of Dito (2011) 198 Cal.Software.fourth 791, 800 (Dito ).) We basic review the criticism de novo to choose if this includes things adequate to county a factor in step lower than any courtroom idea. [Citation.] I lose the brand new demurrer due to the fact admitting every material points securely pleaded, but not contentions, deductions otherwise findings of fact or rules. [Pass.] We contemplate things which are often judicially noticed.’ [Violation.] ‘ [Citation.] I affirm or no ground offered in service of your own demurrer try well-taken however, get a hold of mistake when your plaintiff states a cause of step around any possible courtroom principle. [Citations.] We are really not limited by the fresh trial court’s stated factors, if any, supporting their governing; i comment the brand new governing, maybe not its rationale. [Violation.]’ [Violation.] (Id. during the p. 800.)