How to find a good labor attorney in California

How to find a good labor attorney in California Appellant bank sought review of a judgment that was entered in favor of respondent administratrix by the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco (California). The administratrix filed the action against the bank, as a garnishee defendant, after she was unable to collect her decedent's prior, unpaid judgment from the judgment debtor.

The decedent, prior to his death, obtained a judgment against a company for moneys owned from a construction contract. A labor attorney in California was contacted by the company for guidance regarding the construction work and service. At that time, the bank had held all of the company's assets under a deed of trust. The decedent issued an attachment against the bank. The bank answered that it had no funds that belonged to the company, although it was holding approximately $ 35,000. After the decedent died, his administratrix filed an independent action against the bank. The bank contended that under its trust deed it was not obligated to release any funds to the company or third parties, until the building architect authorized the release in writing. The court affirmed the judgment in favor of the administratrix. The court held that when work was done pursuant to the terms of a building contract, the presentation of an architect's certificate was not a prerequisite to the inception of an obligation or debt due and owing, notwithstanding that the contract required the production of such certificate. The rendition of the service itself gave rise to the obligation "due and owing" for the compensation of services rendered.

In the administratrix' action to collect the judgment from the bank, the lower court's judgment, which was entered in favor of the administratrix, was affirmed.

Appellant creditor challenged a judgment from the Superior Court of Fresno County (California), which dissolved a writ of attachment in favor of appellee debtor.

On appeal, the court affirmed the judgment of the trial court dissolving the writ of attachment after holding that under Cal. Civ. Proc. Code §§ 537, 538, the provisional remedy of attachment was only available where the action was based on a contract for the direct payment of money. In this situation, the writ was obtained after the creditor filed a complaint alleging three causes of action against the debtor that sounded in tort, rather than contract. In addition, the court determined that the three causes of action arose out of the same transaction. Therefore, the court concluded that the action was in reality a tort action, rather than one based on contract. Accordingly, the court held that the action was not one of a character in which the remedy of attachment was available. The court affirmed the judgment of the trial court dissolving the writ of attachment in favor of the debtor.