Crandal

Crandal v. Ball, Ball & Brosamer, Inc.

Good Law
41 Cont. Cas. Fed. 77,009·96 Daily Journal DAR 13213·99 F.3d 907·1996 WL 628189·1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 28259
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitOctober 31, 1996No. 94-16829California1,348 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Kleinfeld, J.

The issue in this case is whether a subcontractor has a private cause of action for money due from a contractor under the Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C. § 637 (d).

FACTS

The United States Bureau of Reclamation hired the lead defendant to repair an aqueduct. Much of the work was application of a sealant to cracks, so that the water would not leak out. The contractor subcontracted this part of the job to KGE, a woman-owned business. KGE formed a joint venture with Mr. Crandal and Mr. Hitchcock to perform the work. Except for work performed by Mr. Greg Crandal and Mr. Kevin Crandal personally, the actual labor was done by the defendant’s employees, and backcharged to the female-owned subcontractor.

Disputes arose about how much money should have been paid for the job, and how much was backcharged. KGE filed a Miller Act ease, see 40 U.S.C. § 270a, et seq., which was settled. The general contractor sought and obtained an equitable adjustment from the United States, and plaintiffs evidently were dissatisfied that it was not shared with them. None of the merits of these claims are before us, nor need the complex relationships between the parties associated on the subcontract be sorted…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.