Murad Reed v. Citimortgage, Inc

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MURAD REED, Case No. 20-cv-00885-VC

Plaintiff,

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND

v. DENYING IN PART MOTION TO

DISMISS

CITIMORTGAGE, INC, et al., Re: Dkt. No. 27 Defendants.

The defendants in this case have moved to dismiss Murad Reed’s complaint on the ground that all the claims are precluded by a prior action in which similar claims were dismissed with prejudice. Reed v. Clear Recon Corp., No. 18-cv-7715, Dkt. Nos. 33, 45, 55 (N.D. Cal.). Because the claims in the prior action arose under state law, California law determines the preclusive effect of that federal-court judgment. Semtek International Inc. v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 531 U.S. 497, 508 (2001). Under California law, claim preclusion applies only “when a second suit involves (1) the same cause of action” (defined, to deter piecemeal litigation, as claims that implicate the same “primary right”) “(2) between the same parties or their privies (3) after a final judgment on the merits in the first suit.” Samara v. Matar, 5 Cal. 5th 322, 327 (2018) (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted). The first element is…