Especially, Nationwide Financial argued the Bank’s area 25504 claim is actually the same reason behind step as the Point fifteen allege beneath the number 1 rights’ theory. Predicated on Countrywide Monetary, the financial institution tried to hang they accountable regarding the Credit Suisse action because the a running people getting alleged misrepresentations from inside the [domestic financial-recognized ties] giving documents as well as in the newest declaratory recovery action, the lending company aims to hold [Nationwide Financial] responsible since the a running people for the very same alleged misrepresentations regarding the exact same ? providing data. Countrywide Financial conceded the courtroom theories in both cases was basically other, but argued the lending company alleged a citation of the identical number one proper-the asserted straight to providing data without situation misrepresentations; and you can, furthermore, says in both tips getting sustained a similar harm just like the a direct result [Countrywide’s Financial’s] so-called misconduct.
Nationwide Financial demurred into the medical revised declaratory recovery issue, contending res judicata barred the new Bank’s part 25504 allege given that Lender was impermissibly looking to relitigate a factor in step that has been dismissed which have prejudice when you look at the an earlier step within exact same functions
At the same time, the lending company contended discover zero final view into deserves about Borrowing from the bank Suisse action due to the fact their states on each securitization involved in Credit Suisse was indeed part of a single cause of step to possess reason for res judicata. As the Financial explained, all the Bank’s states with the people bonds regarding Credit Suisse action are still pending. Thus, there has been zero last wisdom to the deserves of the Bank’s whole factor in action on some of the four ties throughout the Credit Suisse action which can be and the topic away from this step[.] 5
Into the opposition, the lending company contended the brand new section 25504 allege they asserted throughout the declaratory recovery action is actually unlike the new claims you to definitely [it] willingly dismissed into the Borrowing Suisse and that res judicata don’t club it out of asserting more states not as much as yet another statute
New court noticed, [t]he genuine concern is whether that which was ignored ‘s the same first right with what is claimed right here [throughout the declaratory recovery action]. Then the courtroom replied the question throughout the affirmative. They told me, the fresh Bonds Act and sections 25401 and 25501 render handle persons in charge according to the exact same circumstances ? with no factor beneath the federal strategy or perhaps the state scheme? And also the Ca statute isnt materially unlike the federal law. The fresh legal went on, an over-all concept inside the preclusive feeling jurisprudence is that the [c]ourt isnt bound by new format, or perhaps the pleadings, or the articulation in the causes of action. This basically means ? that you don’t view factors behind step ? or components Frisco loans of result in[s] off step. You are free to the center of what is happening. Plus it appears to me personally that center of what is happening, from this perspective ? is control person liability. One to not as much as a federal law and something lower than your state law. And no count how you beg they or what the succession is, ? it is the same in the two cases.
I remark de novo this new court’s buy retaining Countrywide’s demurrer without exit so you’re able to amend. (Estate from Dito (2011) 198 Cal.App.next 791, 800 (Dito ).) I very first remark the fresh new complaint de- novo to determine if it include points sufficient to state a cause of action significantly less than any judge principle. [Solution.] We eradicate the fresh new demurrer as the admitting every situation factors properly pleaded, yet not contentions, write-offs or conclusions of-fact otherwise rules. [Admission.] We contemplate things which are judicially seen.’ [Ticket.] ‘ [Violation.] I affirm if any crushed offered in help of the demurrer are well-taken however, pick mistake when your plaintiff has stated a factor in step below any potential judge principle. [Citations.] We are not bound by brand new demonstration court’s stated factors, or no, support its governing; we opinion new governing, maybe not its rationale. [Ticket.]’ [Citation.] (Id. in the p. 800.)