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

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

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.

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

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