Specifically, Nationwide Financial debated the new Bank’s area 25504 allege is a comparable cause for action as its Point fifteen claim under the first rights’ concept. Centered on Countrywide Economic, the bank sought to hold it accountable from the Borrowing from the bank Suisse action since the a running people to possess alleged misrepresentations from inside the [home-based financial-recognized bonds] giving records plus the fresh declaratory recovery step, the lending company seeks to hold [Countrywide Monetary] liable as the a running individual for the same so-called misrepresentations from the exact same ? offering documents. Nationwide Monetary conceded the fresh new courtroom theories in the two cases was basically some other, however, argued the financial institution so-called a solution of the same no. 1 right-the fresh new asserted to giving documents clear of issue misrepresentations; and, more over, states both in tips getting sustained the same damage because the due to [Countrywide’s Financial’s] alleged misconduct.
Nationwide Financial demurred towards the surgical amended declaratory save grievance, contending res judicata banned the latest Bank’s area 25504 allege just like the Financial are impermissibly looking to relitigate a factor in action that was overlooked that have bias from inside the an earlier action within same functions
At the same time, the lending company argued there is zero latest judgment with the deserves from the Borrowing Suisse action given that the states on each securitization under consideration from inside the Credit Suisse have been part of one reason behind step having reason for res judicata. As Lender explained, the vast majority of Bank’s says into the men and women bonds regarding Borrowing Suisse step remain pending. Ergo, there were zero last judgment with the merits of the Bank’s entire cause of step with the all five ties throughout the Credit Suisse action which might be also the topic out-of this action[.] 5
When you look at the opposition, the lending company argued the point 25504 claim it asserted from the declaratory relief step was not the same as brand new says you to definitely [it] voluntarily disregarded inside the Borrowing Suisse and this res judicata didn’t pub it out of asserting other states around another statute
The new court seen, [t]the guy genuine concern the following is if or not the thing that was dismissed is the exact same top best in what is said right here [from the declaratory recovery step]. Then the court answered the question throughout the affirmative. It told me, the brand new Securities Operate and parts 25401 and you can 25501 offer manage individuals responsible underneath the same affairs ? with no factor within the federal design or even the state scheme? Therefore the Ca law isnt materially not the same as the brand new government statute. Brand new courtroom went on, a standard build inside preclusive feeling jurisprudence is that the [c]ourt is not bound by brand new style, or even the pleadings, or perhaps the articulation from the reasons for action. Put simply ? that you do not check reasons for step ? otherwise areas of bring about[s] out of step. You’re able to the center of what is taking place. Also it seems to me that the cardiovascular system of what actually is taking place, using this position ? is actually handle people accountability. You to below a national law and something not as much as a state statute. With no count how you plead they otherwise exactly what the series was, ? it is an identical in both cases.
I remark de- novo the newest court’s buy retaining Countrywide’s demurrer versus get off so you’re able to amend. (Property of Dito (2011) 198 Cal.App.next 791, 800 (Dito ).) We very first feedback the brand new issue de novo to decide whether or not it consists of issues enough to state a factor in action around one judge principle. [Solution.] We cure this new demurrer due to the fact admitting all the situation issues securely pleaded, but not contentions, write-offs or findings of-fact otherwise rules. [Ticket.] We think about issues which are judicially noticed.’ [Solution.] ‘ [Citation.] We affirm if any soil offered in service of demurrer was well taken however, pick error in the event the plaintiff has stated a factor in action significantly less than any potential judge theory. [Citations.] We are not bound by the fresh trial court’s said factors, if any, help its governing; we opinion the brand new governing, maybe not the rationale. [Admission.]’ [Citation.] (Id. during the p. 800.)