P sought monies from D for work performed under a subcontract. Before the court was a rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss P's claim for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. In 1985, D entered into an agreement with Walsh to build a new hospital. Walsh then subcontracted to P to perform structural steel and metal decking work. Pursuant to the prime contract, Walsh was responsible for paying its subs and nothing in the prime contract indicated there was a relationship between Metro and D. In 1989, D terminated Walsh and Walsh then assigned its contract with P to D. P then sued both Walsh and D to get paid for work. D seeks to dismiss P's complaint claiming that Walsh's assignment of the subcontract did not create on obligation on the party of D to pay for work in which P contracted with Walsh to perform.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.