Especially, Countrywide Economic contended the latest Bank’s section 25504 claim was an identical cause of action as the Area fifteen claim under the number 1 rights’ concept. Considering Nationwide Financial, the financial institution sought for to hold they liable in the Borrowing from the bank Suisse step as a processing people to have so-called misrepresentations inside [home-based home loan-recognized securities] offering documents plus in the fresh new declaratory save step, the financial institution tries to hang [Nationwide Economic] responsible since a handling people for the same alleged misrepresentations throughout the exact same ? providing data files. Countrywide Monetary conceded the latest judge concepts in both cases have been more, however, argued the lending company alleged an admission of the identical no. 1 right-the latest asserted straight to giving records without procedure misrepresentations; and, additionally, states both in procedures to possess sustained the same harm as a direct result [Countrywide’s Financial’s] so-called misconduct.
Countrywide Economic demurred towards medical amended declaratory save criticism, fighting res judicata barred the Bank’s section 25504 claim because the Financial was impermissibly trying relitigate a cause of action that has been overlooked having bias in the a past step between your exact same parties
Additionally, the bank contended there was no final view to your merits throughout the Borrowing from the bank Suisse action since the its claims on every securitization under consideration in Credit Suisse was element of one cause of step getting purposes of res judicata. Since the Bank said, a good many Bank’s states for the people ties on the Credit Suisse step are nevertheless pending. For this reason, there’ve been no latest judgment with the merits of your own Bank’s whole cause for action for the the four securities in the Credit Suisse step which can be along with the subject out-of this action[.] 5
For the resistance, the financial institution argued this new section 25504 claim it asserted regarding declaratory relief step is distinct from the new claims you to definitely [it] voluntarily overlooked inside the Borrowing Suisse and therefore res judicata didn’t club it regarding asserting some other claims Thomasville loans not as much as an alternate law
This new judge observed, [t]the guy genuine question the following is whether or not the thing that was ignored is the same first correct with what is said here [on declaratory rescue action]. Then the judge answered practical question regarding the affirmative. It informed me, the fresh new Bonds Operate and you can areas 25401 and 25501 give control people responsible underneath the same items ? with no significant difference in government scheme or perhaps the state scheme? Together with California statute isnt materially different from the latest government statute. The new judge continued, an over-all build inside the preclusive perception jurisprudence is the fact that the [c]ourt is not bound by the newest structure, or the pleadings, or perhaps the articulation in the reasons for step. This means that ? that you don’t examine causes of action ? or areas of bring about[s] from action. You get to the heart of what is happening. And it also generally seems to myself the cardiovascular system of what is happening, using this direction ? try control people liability. That lower than a national statute and one significantly less than your state statute. No count the way you beg they or precisely what the sequence is actually, ? it is a comparable in both cases.
I opinion de novo the fresh new court’s buy preserving Countrywide’s demurrer without exit to amend. (Home from Dito (2011) 198 Cal.Application.fourth 791, 800 (Dito ).) I earliest opinion the newest grievance de- novo to decide whether it consists of issues sufficient to condition a cause of action lower than people legal principle. [Violation.] We treat the latest demurrer because admitting the question factors properly pleaded, but not contentions, write-offs or results of fact otherwise law. [Admission.] We think about matters which might be judicially observed.’ [Admission.] ‘ [Ticket.] We affirm if any ground offered in support of the demurrer are well taken however, see error in case the plaintiff states a factor in step less than any potential courtroom concept. [Citations.] We are not bound by the fresh demonstration court’s stated grounds, if any, supporting their governing; we comment the new ruling, perhaps not the rationale. [Ticket.]’ [Admission.] (Id. from the p. 800.)