Especially, Countrywide Economic contended the new Bank’s area 25504 claim are an equivalent reason for action as the Section 15 allege in first rights’ idea. Centered on Nationwide Monetary, the lending company tried to hold it liable on Borrowing Suisse step once the a handling individual for so-called misrepresentations for the [domestic financial-backed securities] giving documents as well as in new declaratory recovery action, the financial institution seeks to hang [Nationwide Economic] liable due to the fact an operating individual for the very same so-called misrepresentations on exact same ? giving files. Countrywide Monetary conceded this new legal ideas in both cases was different, but debated the bank alleged a pass of the same top proper-new asserted straight to giving files without issue misrepresentations; and you may, also, says in both strategies getting suffered an identical harm since the a direct result [Countrywide’s Financial’s] alleged misconduct.

Countrywide Monetary demurred towards medical revised declaratory rescue grievance, contending res judicata banned the latest Bank’s point 25504 claim as Lender are impermissibly seeking to relitigate a factor in step that has been dismissed which have prejudice in the a prior action involving the exact same events

Simultaneously, the financial institution contended you will find no final wisdom toward deserves about Credit Suisse action while the their states on each securitization under consideration inside the Credit Suisse were part of one cause for step having purposes of res judicata. Since the Lender informed me, the majority of the Bank’s says with the those individuals ties from the Credit Suisse step are nevertheless pending. Thus, there has been zero finally judgment with the merits of your own Bank’s entire factor in step towards the some of the five securities on Borrowing Suisse action that are and the subject out-of this action[.] 5

Within the resistance, the bank debated brand new area 25504 claim it asserted on the declaratory rescue step are different from the latest states you to definitely [it] willingly overlooked from inside the Credit Suisse which res judicata didn’t pub they off saying different says below another law

This new judge seen, [t]the guy genuine concern let me reveal if or not that which was dismissed is the same no. 1 proper as to what is claimed here [about declaratory save step]. Then legal responded practical question on the affirmative. It told me, the brand new Bonds Operate and you may areas 25401 and 25501 render control persons responsible under the same affairs ? with no factor within the government system and/or county scheme? And also the Ca law is not materially not the same as the new government law. The court proceeded, a broad concept inside preclusive impact jurisprudence is the fact that [c]ourt is not bound by the fresh structure, and/or pleadings, or the articulation throughout the causes of step. Put another way ? that you do not glance at causes of step ? otherwise parts of cause[s] out of action. You can the heart of what is going on. Also it seems to me that cardio of what actually is taking place, using this position ? are handle people accountability. You to lower than a federal statute plus one significantly less than your state law. With no amount the manner in which you plead they otherwise what the series try, ? that it is an identical in both cases.

I feedback de- novo the fresh new court’s acquisition sustaining Countrywide’s demurrer rather than log off so you’re able to amend. (Property from Dito (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 791, 800 (Dito ).) I first comment new issue de- novo to Mckenzie loans determine whether or not it contains issues enough to condition a cause of step under any judge idea. [Citation.] We treat the brand new demurrer while the admitting most of the point situations securely pleaded, not contentions, write-offs otherwise findings of-fact or law. [Ticket.] I contemplate matters that can easily be judicially observed.’ [Pass.] ‘ [Violation.] We affirm or no crushed offered in help of your own demurrer are well taken however, see mistake in the event your plaintiff states a cause of action below any possible court concept. [Citations.] We’re not limited by the latest demo court’s stated explanations, if any, support the ruling; we comment new governing, maybe not their rationale. [Citation.]’ [Admission.] (Id. within p. 800.)