In the a paying attention, new court sustained Countrywide Financial’s demurrer instead get off to amend

Specifically, Countrywide Monetary debated new Bank’s area 25504 allege is a comparable reason behind step as the Point 15 claim underneath the number 1 rights’ principle. Predicated on Countrywide Monetary, the financial institution needed to hold it liable on Borrowing Suisse action since an operating individual for so-called misrepresentations inside the [domestic financial-recognized securities] providing data and in the brand new declaratory relief action, the lending company aims to hang [Nationwide Monetary] liable given that a control individual for similar so-called misrepresentations regarding the same ? providing data files. Countrywide Financial conceded the newest court concepts in the two cases were different, however, contended the lending company alleged a violation of the identical number 1 proper-the new asserted to giving data files free of issue misrepresentations; and you can, moreover, states in both measures having suffered an identical spoil due to the fact a result of [Countrywide’s Financial’s] so-called misconduct.

Countrywide Financial demurred on surgical amended declaratory recovery complaint, contending res judicata barred this new Bank’s area 25504 allege as the Financial is impermissibly trying relitigate a factor in action which was dismissed that have prejudice when you look at the a prior action amongst the same events

At the same time, the bank contended there clearly was zero final wisdom to your merits on the Credit money loan Woodstock Suisse step as the says for each securitization involved during the Borrowing Suisse was indeed section of an individual reason for step to own purposes of res judicata. Because the Bank told me, a lot of Bank’s states with the the individuals securities regarding Credit Suisse step remain pending. Therefore, we have witnessed zero finally judgment towards the deserves of your own Bank’s whole cause of step into the the five ties on the Borrowing from the bank Suisse step which can be plus the topic of this task[.] 5

Into the opposition, the bank contended the part 25504 claim it asserted on declaratory save step is distinctive from the new claims one to [it] willingly dismissed into the Borrowing Suisse and that res judicata don’t pub it away from saying some other claims lower than an alternate law

The legal noticed, [t]he genuine question the following is whether that was ignored is the exact same number one best in what is said here [throughout the declaratory relief step]. Then your judge responded the question throughout the affirmative. It said, the fresh Securities Act and sections 25401 and 25501 offer control persons in control in same items ? without any significant difference in government strategy or even the county scheme? And California law isnt materially different from the fresh government statute. The newest courtroom proceeded, an over-all style in preclusive perception jurisprudence is the fact that [c]ourt is not bound by the latest style, and/or pleadings, or even the articulation about causes of step. This means that ? that you do not look at reasons for action ? otherwise parts of trigger[s] off step. You get to the heart of what actually is happening. Therefore seems to me the cardio of what is taking place, from this perspective ? is handle person responsibility. That not as much as a federal statute and something not as much as your state statute. No matter the manner in which you plead it otherwise precisely what the series try, ? it is a similar in the two cases.

I review de novo the fresh court’s purchase retaining Countrywide’s demurrer versus leave so you’re able to amend. (Estate out of Dito (2011) 198 Cal.Application.last 791, 800 (Dito ).) I first review the latest complaint de novo to determine whether or not it contains issues sufficient to condition a factor in step below any court theory. [Solution.] We lose brand new demurrer because the admitting all the material things properly pleaded, not contentions, deductions otherwise results of-fact or rules. [Ticket.] We also consider matters which may be judicially noticed.’ [Citation.] ‘ [Ticket.] I affirm or no ground available in support of the demurrer is actually well taken but select mistake if your plaintiff has stated a cause of step not as much as any potential court concept. [Citations.] We are really not limited by new demonstration court’s mentioned reasons, if any, supporting the ruling; we feedback the brand new ruling, not the rationale. [Citation.]’ [Pass.] (Id. within p. 800.)