Free Notice (Other) - District Court of California - California

Case 3:07-cv-02410-WQH-JMA

Document 16

Filed 06/20/2008

Page 1 of 2

JONATHAN HAYDEN (Bar No. 104520) 2 HELLER EHRMAN LLP 333 Bush Street 3 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 772-6000 4 Facsimile: (415) 772-6268 [email protected] 5 CHAD R. FULLER (Bar No. 190830) 6 BRITTANY L. S. LITTLE (Bar. No. 239681) HELLER EHRMAN LLP 7 4350 La Jolla Village Drive, 7th Floor San Diego, CA 92122 8 Telephone: (858) 450-8400 Facsimile: (858) 450-8499 9 [email protected] [email protected] 10 11 Attorneys for Defendant WASHINGTON MUTUAL BANK 12 13 14 15 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Case No.: 07 CV 2410 WQH JMA

1

16 VINCENT BOVA, on behalf of himself, and on behalf of all persons similarly situated, 17 Plaintiffs, 18 v. 19 WASHINGTON MUTUAL BANK and Does 1 20 to 10, 21 22 23 24 25 26 27
Heller Ehrman LLP

Defendants.

DEFENDANT'S NOTICE OF THE CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT'S DENIAL OF REVIEW IN THE CRESSE MATTER AND REPLY TO PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE OF NEW AUTHORITY BY THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT IN OPPOSITION TO WASHINGTON MUTUAL'S MOTION TO DISMISS Date: June 9, 2008 Time: 11:00 a.m. Judge: William Q. Hayes

28
DEFENDANT'S NOTICE OF THE CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT'S DENIAL OF REVIEW IN THE CRESSE MATTER AND REPLY TO PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE OF NEW AUTHORITY IN OPPOSITION TO WASHINGTON MUTUAL'S MOTION TO DISMISS CASE NO. 07CV2410 WQH (JMA)

Case 3:07-cv-02410-WQH-JMA

Document 16

Filed 06/20/2008

Page 2 of 2

1

As requested, Washington Mutual Bank ("WaMu") submits the Notice filed by the

2 Supreme Court of California on June 11, 2008, denying Kimblyn Creese's petition for 3 review in Creese v. Washington Mut. Bank, No. B193931, 2008 WL 650766 (March 12, 4 2008) (not reported).1 The decision in Creese is now final. 5 In addition, Defendant WaMu has reviewed Plaintiff's Notice of New Authority and

6 the accompanying case, Taylor v. Sturgell, Case No. 07-371, 553 U.S. ______, 2008 U.S. 7 Lexis 4885 (June 12, 2008). While WaMu is prepared to fully brief the implication of the 8 Taylor decision if requested by the Court, the simple fact is that Taylor is not relevant to the 9 present action for two main reasons. First, Taylor focuses on the fact that "the preclusive 10 effect of a federal-court judgment is determined by federal common law." Id. at 9. Here, 11 the Court is deciding the preclusive effect of a California state judgment, not a federal12 court judgment and as such, federal common law does not apply. As stated in WaMu's 13 Motion to Dismiss, California substantive law applies to the analysis of collateral estoppel.2 14 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1738, the Court has a duty to apply the res judicata rules of 15 California to judgments issued by a California court.3 16 Second, Taylor does not arise in the context of a class action and is, therefore,

17 outside of the analytical framework that should be used when considering this case. 18 Dated: June 19, 2008 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27
Heller Ehrman LLP
1 2 3

HELLER EHRMAN LLP

/s/ /Chad R. Fuller Jonathan Hayden Chad R. Fuller Brittany Little Attorneys for Defendant WASHINGTON MUTUAL BANK

A copy of the notice is attached hereto as Exhibit A. See WaMu's Motion to Dismiss at page 1, lines 5-6. See WaMu's Motion to Dismiss page 9 lines 12-13. 2
CASE NO. 07CV2410 WQH (JMA)

28

DEFENDANT'S NOTICE OF THE CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT'S DENIAL OF REVIEW IN THE CRESSE MATTER AND REPLY TO PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE OF NEW AUTHORITY IN OPPOSITION TO WASHINGTON MUTUAL'S MOTION TO DISMISS