Debro

background from the properly pleaded material allegations of the operative complaint. (Estate of Dito (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 791, 795.) In this case, however, because one of the grounds for the demurrer is the purported direct estoppel effect of prior litigation between the parties, we must necessarily consider the action that is claimed to have preclusive effect. (Ibid.) Therefore, we begin by summarizing the prior litigation that allegedly precludes Debro’s current complaint. Summary of Debro I “On August 7, 1995, [the Raiders] and entities known as the East Bay Entities (the City of Oakland, the County of Alameda, the Oakland-Alameda County Coliseum Authority, the Oakland-Alameda County Coliseum Financing Corporation, and the Oakland-Alameda County Coliseum, Inc.) entered into certain agreements by which the Raiders would play professional football in Oakland through 2011.” (Debro I, supra, 92 Cal.App.4th at p. 943.) Pursuant to the terms of a master agreement, the Oakland- Alameda County Coliseum was to be expanded and modernized. Under a loan agreement that was part of the master agreement, the East Bay Entities authorized loans of “up to $85 million to the Raiders to finance…