Specifically, Countrywide Financial contended brand new Bank’s section 25504 claim is actually the same reason behind step as its Point 15 allege under the top rights’ principle. Based on Countrywide Economic, the financial institution tried to hold they accountable on the Borrowing Suisse step since the a control person to own so-called misrepresentations during the [home-based mortgage-supported securities] giving records and also in the new declaratory recovery step, the lending company seeks to hold [Nationwide Economic] accountable because a running person for the very same alleged misrepresentations throughout the same ? offering documents. Nationwide Monetary conceded the brand new court concepts in both cases was some other, but debated the bank alleged a pass of the identical no. 1 best-the newest asserted straight to providing files clear of question misrepresentations; and, also, states in both steps to possess suffered the same spoil given that a result of [Countrywide’s Financial’s] so-called misconduct.
Nationwide Financial demurred with the medical revised declaratory save ailment, contending res judicata banned the fresh new Bank’s point 25504 allege because Lender try impermissibly trying relitigate a factor in step which had been disregarded which have bias into the a previous action within same parties
Likewise, the lending company debated there is no finally view with the deserves regarding the Borrowing from the bank Suisse step once the their claims for each securitization involved in Credit Suisse was basically section of just one cause for step having reason for res judicata. Given that Lender explained, all the Bank’s says with the those people bonds throughout the Borrowing Suisse action will still be pending. For this reason, we have witnessed zero finally https://paydayloanalabama.com/russellville/ view to your merits of Bank’s entire cause for action on the all four bonds regarding Borrowing Suisse step which can be along with the topic out-of this step[.] 5
Within the opposition, the lending company argued the brand new section 25504 claim they asserted regarding the declaratory rescue step was different from new says you to definitely [it] willingly disregarded when you look at the Borrowing from the bank Suisse and that res judicata failed to bar it away from asserting some other claims around a unique law
The fresh new legal seen, [t]the guy actual question here’s whether that was dismissed is the same first proper as to what is said right here [on the declaratory relief step]. Then courtroom replied the question regarding affirmative. They told me, the Securities Work and sections 25401 and 25501 give control persons responsible under the same issues ? without any significant difference under the government strategy or the county scheme? And California statute is not materially unlike brand new federal statute. The new judge continued, a general build when you look at the preclusive effect jurisprudence is the fact that [c]ourt isnt bound by new structure, or the pleadings, or the articulation throughout the reasons for action. This means that ? that you do not view factors behind step ? or components of trigger[s] out-of action. You can the center of what actually is happening. And it appears to myself that cardiovascular system of what is going on, from this angle ? are handle individual responsibility. One to below a national statute and another not as much as your state statute. With no count the method that you ask it otherwise just what series is actually, ? it is an equivalent in the two cases.
I review de- novo the newest court’s acquisition sustaining Countrywide’s demurrer rather than log off so you’re able to amend. (Property of Dito (2011) 198 Cal.Software.next 791, 800 (Dito ).) We first feedback the brand new problem de novo to decide whether or not it consists of affairs sufficient to condition a factor in step around any court idea. [Violation.] We remove the fresh new demurrer once the admitting all situation circumstances safely pleaded, yet not contentions, deductions or conclusions of-fact otherwise laws. [Admission.] I contemplate issues that can easily be judicially noticed.’ [Violation.] ‘ [Violation.] I affirm or no soil available in help of your demurrer is actually well taken but pick mistake if for example the plaintiff states a cause of step under any potential judge principle. [Citations.] We’re not bound by the fresh new trial court’s said grounds, or no, help their governing; i comment this new ruling, perhaps not its rationale. [Ticket.]’ [Ticket.] (Id. within p. 800.)