California Court of Appeal

In a breach of contract suit brought by a prime contractor on two public works projects against its former subcontractor, a judgment finding that plaintiff was entitled to an attachment order is reversed where the lower court erred in finding that plaintiff was entitled to the remedy, not because it had affirmatively shown the probable validity of its claim or established other requisite criteria, as was its burden, but because defendant could not "re-litigate" the issue of its breach of contract.

Appellate Information

• Decided 01/23/2007
• Published 01/23/2007

Judges

Court

• California Court of Appeal

Counsel

• For Appellees:
  
• Ross, Dixon & Bell, Jon R. Williams and Lindsay J. Reese, San Diego, for Defendant and Appellant., Kellam & Biedebach, Newton W. Kellam, Laguna Niguel, and James W. Biedebach for Plaintiff and Respondent.