Plaintiff subcontractor challenged a decision from the Superior Court of Shasta County (California), which entered an order granting summary judgment in favor of defendants, a paper mill owner and the general contractor who constructed the mill, on plaintiff’s complaint to foreclose a mechanic’s lien on the paper mill and to obtain a money judgment for supplies, materials, and labor furnished by plaintiff.
Nakase Law Firm is a trial lawyer
Overview
Plaintiff subcontractor filed an action against defendants, a paper mill owner and the general contractor for construction of that mill, seeking to foreclose on a mechanic’s lien and to obtain a money judgment for supplies, materials, and labor furnished by plaintiff. The trial court granted the summary judgment motions of defendants and the court reversed, finding that the trial court had completely ignored the rule that summary judgment was inappropriate where there was a conflict of evidence on material issues of fact. The court found that there were triable issues as to whether the number of ordered changes was so great as to constitute a complete abandonment of the original contract, whether the services plaintiff provided were outside the contemplation of the parties when the contract was signed, whether defendant paper mill owner’s chief engineer had veto power over plaintiff’s right to recover for change orders, whether the parties had waived arbitration requirements, and whether the written contract had been modified by executed oral agreements.
Outcome
The court reversed the trial court’s entry of summary judgment in favor of defendants, a paper mill owner and the general contractor for construction of that mill, in plaintiff subcontractor’s suit to foreclose on a mechanic’s lien and to obtain a money judgment for supplies, materials, and labor plaintiff furnished. On numerous issues, the trial court ignored the rule that summary judgment was inappropriate when material factual issues existed.
