2007, as a result of Controlled Air’s breach of the subcontract. While both actions stem from the same project and contractual relationship, each is premised on a different wrong arising from different occurrences. Upon completion of the lien foreclosure, the only issue decided will have been whether labor and materials were provided for which the Joint Venture has failed to pay. A decision on that claim, which has been asserted only in state court, will not foreclose the issue of whether Controlled Air breached the subcontract and whether the Joint Venture incurred damages as a result. Accordingly, the state lien foreclosure action will not dispose of all issues in the federal contract action. See, e.g., George Weis Co. v. Stratum Design-Build, Inc., 227 S.W.3d 486, 489-90 (Mo.2007) (<HOLDING>). Neither will any judgment rendered in the
holding that the lien bond releases the property from the lien but the lien is then secured by the bond recognizing that the elements of a claim for breach of contract are 1 existence of a valid contract and 2 breach of the terms of that contract holding a lien is a claim against property  here a surety bond and breach of contract is a claim against a person thus the lien proceeding did not dispose of the breach of contract action holding immaterial breach did not constitute breach of contract holding that a breach of contract claim against one defendant related back to interference with contract claim against that defendant and breach of contract claim against second defendant because it was based on same set of operative facts