Especially, Nationwide Financial debated the Bank’s area 25504 claim was a comparable cause of step as the Part 15 allege underneath the first rights’ principle. Considering Countrywide Economic, the lending company tried to hang they liable regarding the Credit Suisse action while the a handling people for alleged misrepresentations for the [home-based mortgage-supported bonds] offering files along with the brand new declaratory save step, the bank seeks to hang [Countrywide Economic] accountable because the an operating individual for the same so-called misrepresentations regarding the exact same ? giving files. Countrywide Economic conceded the fresh courtroom ideas in both cases was other, but debated the financial institution so-called an admission of the identical top right-the fresh new asserted to giving records free of procedure misrepresentations; and you may, moreover, states both in steps having sustained a similar damage since the due to [Countrywide’s Financial’s] alleged misconduct.
Countrywide Economic demurred for the operative revised declaratory rescue problem, competing res judicata prohibited brand new Bank’s area 25504 claim as Financial are impermissibly trying relitigate a factor in action that has been overlooked which have bias when you look at the a prior action within same events
On the other hand, the bank debated there can be no final wisdom on the merits throughout the Borrowing from the bank Suisse step since the says on every securitization concerned when you look at the Borrowing from the bank Suisse were part of one reason for step to own reason for res judicata. Due to the fact Bank explained, all the Bank’s claims on men and women securities regarding the Borrowing from the bank Suisse step are nevertheless pending. Thus, there were zero final wisdom to the merits of the Bank’s entire cause for action on the the four bonds about Credit Suisse step that are along with the topic away from this action[.] 5
When you look at the resistance, the financial institution argued brand new section 25504 claim it asserted from the declaratory recovery step try distinctive from the brand new states one to [it] willingly overlooked in the Borrowing from the bank Suisse hence res judicata did not bar they regarding saying other states under a unique law
The fresh new court seen, [t]he genuine matter here is if or not that which was overlooked ‘s the same primary best with what is considered right here [about declaratory recovery step]. Then the court responded the question regarding affirmative. It explained, the newest Bonds Act and you can parts 25401 and 25501 give handle people in control under the exact same facts ? without any significant difference within the government system or even the county scheme? Additionally the California statute isnt materially distinctive from this new federal statute. The fresh judge went on, a broad style in preclusive perception jurisprudence is the fact that the [c]ourt isnt bound by the latest structure, or even the pleadings, Altona loans or perhaps the articulation in the reasons for action. In other words ? you don’t look at factors that cause step ? otherwise elements of lead to[s] regarding action. You are able to the center of what actually is taking place. Plus it appears to myself that cardiovascular system of what actually is taking place, from this direction ? is actually control individual responsibility. One significantly less than a federal law and one less than a state law. With no number the way you ask they otherwise exactly what the sequence is, ? it is an equivalent in both cases.
We remark de novo this new court’s acquisition preserving Countrywide’s demurrer as opposed to get-off to amend. (Property off Dito (2011) 198 Cal.App.fourth 791, 800 (Dito ).) I basic remark the latest issue de novo to choose whether it includes affairs enough to state a factor in step lower than any courtroom principle. [Admission.] We clean out the new demurrer because admitting every situation points securely pleaded, however contentions, write-offs or findings of-fact or laws. [Admission.] We contemplate things which is often judicially noticed.’ [Solution.] ‘ [Ticket.] I affirm or no surface offered in service of the demurrer is well-taken however, get a hold of error in the event the plaintiff has stated a cause of step below any potential courtroom idea. [Citations.] We are not limited by the trial court’s stated reasons, or no, supporting their ruling; i remark the new ruling, maybe not their rationale. [Pass.]’ [Solution.] (Id. in the p. 800.)