Particularly, Countrywide Financial argued the new Bank’s section 25504 allege is actually the same cause of action as the Area 15 claim under the number one rights’ concept. Predicated on Nationwide Economic, the financial institution sought to hold it liable from the Credit Suisse step due to the fact a handling individual to own so-called misrepresentations into the [home-based mortgage-backed securities] giving documents as well as in brand new declaratory recovery step, the financial institution aims to hold [Nationwide Financial] liable because a control person for the very same alleged misrepresentations throughout the same ? giving data. Countrywide Monetary conceded brand new legal ideas in both cases have been additional, but argued the bank alleged a citation of the same number 1 correct-the new asserted straight to providing records clear of situation misrepresentations; and you will, moreover, states in both measures for sustained a similar spoil once the a result of [Countrywide’s Financial’s] so-called misconduct.

Countrywide Monetary demurred to your surgical amended declaratory rescue issue, competing res judicata barred brand new Bank’s area 25504 allege just like the Financial are impermissibly trying to relitigate a cause of step which had been overlooked having prejudice inside a past step between the same parties

At exactly the same time, the lending company argued there can be no last wisdom toward deserves on the Borrowing Suisse step as the the states for each securitization involved during the Credit Suisse was indeed element of an individual cause for step to have reason for res judicata. Since Lender explained, a good many Bank’s claims for the people ties from the Credit Suisse action are pending. For this reason, there’ve been no last view into the deserves of the Bank’s whole cause of action towards the any of the four ties regarding the Borrowing from the bank Suisse step that will be in addition to the subject of this[.] 5

For the opposition, the lending company argued the new part 25504 allege they asserted in the declaratory recovery action are distinct from the states you to loans in Berthoud [it] willingly overlooked into the Borrowing from the bank Suisse and this res judicata failed to club they out-of saying additional claims significantly less than a unique statute

The brand new court observed, [t]he genuine question here’s whether or not that was dismissed ‘s the same number 1 right in what is alleged right here [from the declaratory rescue action]. Then the legal answered the question throughout the affirmative. They informed me, the fresh Ties Work and you will parts 25401 and you may 25501 provide handle people responsible beneath the exact same activities ? without any significant difference according to the government scheme or even the state scheme? And Ca law is not materially distinct from new government law. The fresh courtroom proceeded, a broad build within the preclusive perception jurisprudence is the fact that [c]ourt isnt bound by this new style, or perhaps the pleadings, or even the articulation regarding factors that cause step. Quite simply ? you do not examine causes of action ? otherwise parts of bring about[s] out-of step. You can one’s heart of what actually is happening. Therefore generally seems to myself the heart of what is happening, from this direction ? is actually handle individual responsibility. One to under a federal statute and something around a state statute. No count the manner in which you plead it otherwise what the series are, ? that it’s a similar in the two cases.

I review de- novo the new court’s order preserving Countrywide’s demurrer in the place of hop out to help you amend. (Property away from Dito (2011) 198 Cal.Application.next 791, 800 (Dito ).) I earliest comment this new ailment de- novo to choose if it include factors sufficient to state a cause of action under people court theory. [Pass.] We treat the brand new demurrer as admitting all of the topic factors securely pleaded, not contentions, deductions or findings of-fact or laws. [Ticket.] We contemplate matters which might be judicially noticed.’ [Solution.] ‘ [Violation.] We affirm if any surface offered in assistance of your own demurrer try well-taken however, come across error in case the plaintiff states a cause of step less than any potential legal concept. [Citations.] We are really not bound by the newest demo court’s stated causes, if any, supporting their governing; i opinion new ruling, maybe not their rationale. [Solution.]’ [Admission.] (Id. at the p. 800.)