Particularly, Nationwide Economic argued the Bank’s area 25504 allege is actually an identical factor in step as the Point fifteen allege underneath the first rights‘ concept. Centered on Countrywide Economic, the lending company looked for to hold they liable from the Borrowing from the bank Suisse step because the a handling individual having alleged misrepresentations inside [residential mortgage-recognized bonds] providing records and also in the brand new declaratory recovery action, the lending company tries to hang [Countrywide Economic] responsible just like the an operating individual for the same so-called misrepresentations regarding exact same ? giving files. Countrywide Economic conceded brand new court theories in the two cases had been other, but contended the financial institution so-called a solution of the same primary proper-the fresh asserted directly to giving data without topic misrepresentations; and you can, more over, says in tips to possess suffered an identical damage since the due to [Countrywide’s Financial’s] alleged misconduct.

Countrywide Economic demurred toward surgical amended declaratory recovery problem, fighting res judicata banned the fresh new Bank’s area 25504 claim due to the fact Lender are impermissibly trying to relitigate a factor in action that has been dismissed which have bias inside a past action between the same functions

While doing so, the financial institution argued there was no final wisdom towards the merits from the Credit Suisse action once the its states for each securitization under consideration inside Borrowing Suisse was indeed section of one cause for step having reason for res judicata. As Financial explained, all of the Bank’s says to your those individuals securities regarding the Credit Suisse step are nevertheless pending. Therefore, there has been zero finally view into the deserves of Bank’s entire reason for step into the four securities from the Borrowing from the bank Suisse step which can be also the topic of this[.] 5

When you look at the resistance, the financial institution argued the brand new section 25504 allege they asserted about declaratory recovery step was unlike the new claims one [it] willingly dismissed into https://paydayloancolorado.net/gleneagle/ the Borrowing Suisse which res judicata did not club it of asserting other claims under an alternate statute

The fresh new legal observed, [t]the guy real concern here is whether that was dismissed is the same first correct with what is alleged here [on the declaratory save step]. Then courtroom responded the question regarding affirmative. It said, new Securities Act and you can sections 25401 and you can 25501 offer control persons in control underneath the exact same issues ? without any factor according to the federal program or perhaps the condition scheme? And the Ca law is not materially unlike brand new federal statute. The brand new judge continued, an over-all concept when you look at the preclusive feeling jurisprudence is the fact that [c]ourt is not limited by the fresh structure, or perhaps the pleadings, or perhaps the articulation regarding factors behind step. Put simply ? you do not view causes of step ? or areas of bring about[s] regarding action. You are able to the heart of what is taking place. Plus it appears to me the cardiovascular system of what actually is happening, from this angle ? are manage person liability. You to definitely not as much as a national statute and something around a state law. No count the manner in which you ask it or just what succession is actually, ? that it’s an identical in both cases.

I feedback de novo this new court’s acquisition retaining Countrywide’s demurrer rather than get off to amend. (Estate of Dito (2011) 198 Cal.App.fourth 791, 800 (Dito ).) I first feedback the brand new problem de novo to determine whether or not it consists of situations sufficient to state a factor in step not as much as one judge idea. [Admission.] We beat the latest demurrer because admitting every procedure affairs properly pleaded, however contentions, write-offs or results of-fact otherwise rules. [Ticket.] We contemplate matters which are often judicially observed.‘ [Ticket.] ‚ [Citation.] I affirm if any crushed offered in service of demurrer try well-taken but discover error in case your plaintiff has stated a factor in action less than any possible judge theory. [Citations.] We’re not bound by the fresh new demo court’s mentioned factors, or no, help their governing; we feedback this new governing, not its rationale. [Ticket.]‘ [Citation.] (Id. during the p. 800.)