Especially, Nationwide Financial argued this new Bank’s part 25504 claim try an equivalent cause of step as the Point 15 allege under the no. 1 rights’ idea. According to Countrywide Financial, the bank wanted to hang it responsible regarding Credit Suisse action because a handling people to possess so-called misrepresentations in [residential mortgage-supported bonds] providing data plus in new declaratory save step, the lending company aims to hang [Nationwide Monetary] liable while the an operating individual for the very same so-called misrepresentations about same ? offering documents. Nationwide Financial conceded the latest courtroom ideas in the two cases was additional, but argued the bank alleged a pass of the identical first right-the new asserted directly to offering data files free of thing misrepresentations; and you may, moreover, claims Lisman loans both in steps to have suffered the same spoil since the a result of [Countrywide’s Financial’s] alleged misconduct.
Countrywide Financial demurred into the surgical amended declaratory recovery ailment, competing res judicata prohibited new Bank’s point 25504 claim because Bank is impermissibly seeking relitigate a cause of action that was ignored having bias for the an earlier action within exact same people
On the other hand, the financial institution contended you will find zero final judgment on merits throughout the Borrowing from the bank Suisse step since the their claims on every securitization at issue from inside the Borrowing Suisse was in fact section of a single reason for action to have purposes of res judicata. Due to the fact Financial informed me, most of the Bank’s states for the those people bonds regarding the Borrowing Suisse step are nevertheless pending. Therefore, there have been no final judgment to your deserves of one’s Bank’s entire reason for action into any of the four securities on Credit Suisse action that will be plus the topic of this[.] 5
Inside opposition, the lending company argued the point 25504 allege it asserted on declaratory save action are different from the states that [it] willingly dismissed into the Borrowing Suisse which res judicata don’t bar they off asserting some other states significantly less than an alternative law
Brand new legal noticed, [t]the guy real concern here is whether or not that which was overlooked ‘s the same first correct in what is alleged right here [throughout the declaratory recovery action]. Then your judge replied practical question regarding affirmative. They said, this new Ties Work and you may sections 25401 and you will 25501 provide handle individuals responsible under the same factors ? without any factor beneath the government design and/or county scheme? Therefore the California statute is not materially distinct from the fresh federal statute. The newest judge proceeded, a general style when you look at the preclusive feeling jurisprudence is the fact that [c]ourt is not limited by the brand new style, and/or pleadings, or even the articulation regarding the causes of action. Quite simply ? you don’t check factors that cause step ? or elements of end up in[s] from action. You’re able to the heart of what actually is happening. Therefore generally seems to me personally that heart of what actually is going on, out of this position ? are manage people accountability. One significantly less than a federal statute plus one lower than a state statute. And no matter the way you beg it or what the succession is, ? that it is a similar in the two cases.
We remark de novo the fresh court’s order sustaining Countrywide’s demurrer instead of leave to help you amend. (Home out of Dito (2011) 198 Cal.Application.next 791, 800 (Dito ).) I basic comment brand new criticism de- novo to decide if it consists of situations enough to county a factor in action around people legal concept. [Citation.] I beat the fresh demurrer because admitting all the point factors securely pleaded, not contentions, deductions otherwise results of-fact otherwise legislation. [Ticket.] I also consider matters which might be judicially observed.’ [Ticket.] ‘ [Violation.] I affirm or no soil offered in support of one’s demurrer try well-taken but see mistake when your plaintiff states a factor in step significantly less than any possible court principle. [Citations.] We are not bound by the new demo court’s mentioned explanations, if any, help their governing; we feedback the ruling, not its rationale. [Violation.]’ [Citation.] (Id. from the p. 800.)