The plaintiff, a drywall contractor, brought a construction lien action claiming he personally contracted with the defendant general contractor.
The defendant argued the contract was actually with the plaintiff's numbered company, a unionized entity, and that the plaintiff was attempting to circumvent his union obligations by claiming a personal contract.
The court found that the contract was indeed with the numbered company, not the plaintiff personally.
As the plaintiff was not the proper party to claim the lien, his action was dismissed and the lien was discharged.
