This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Contracts
Miller Act
Breach of Contract

Prime Mechanical Service, Inc. v. Federal Solutions Group, Inc., et al.

Published: Jan. 18, 2019 | Result Date: Nov. 28, 2018 |

Case number: 18-cv-03307-MMC Bench Decision –  Defense

Judge

Maxine M. Chesney

Court

USDC Northern District of California


Attorneys

Plaintiff

William J. Braun
(Braun & Melucci LLP) Prime Mechanical Service, Inc.


Defendant

Mark A. Oertel
(Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP) Indemnity Company of California


Facts

On March 6, 2017, Federal Solutions Group Inc., was awarded a prime contract by the United States acting by and through the General Services Administration, which required Federal Solutions to design and install stair pressurization fans and a new heating, ventilation, and air conditioning system for the Frank Hagel Federal Building.

Federal Solutions Group and defendant Indemnity Company of California, as surety, delivered a payment bond to the General Services Administration in which Indemnity Co. guaranteed payment to all entities supplying labor, services and material involved in the execution of the work provided for in the contract.

Prime Mechanical Service Inc. filed suit against Federal Solutions Group and Indemnity Co. in relation to the contract.

Contentions

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS: Plaintiff alleged that defendants refused to pay for services rendered.

DEFENDANTS' CONTENTIONS: Indemnity Co. contended that, although taking on-site field measurements may have involved some minor physical activity, it did not amount to the physical toil required by the Miller Act. Accordingly, defendants argued, plaintiff's Miller Act claim against Indemnity Co. should be dismissed for failure to plead the requisite furnishing of "labor or material." See 40 U.S.C. 3133(b).

Result

The court granted defendants motion to dismiss.


#130872

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390