Ogata v. J.G. Construction
sFiled 9/6/06 Ogata v. J.G. Construction CA2/7
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION SEVEN
| AIKO OGATA et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. J. G. CONSTRUCTION CO. et al., Defendants and Respondents. | B177486 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC296570) |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Emilie H. Elias, Judge. Affirmed.
Law Offices of Arthur E. Cooper and Arthur E. Cooper, Aiko Ogata in pro. per. for Plaintiffs and Appellants.
Anderson, Krehbiel, McCreary & Bryan, Joel R. Bryan and David V. Hadek for Defendants and Respondents.
____________________
This action is one for construction defects arising from a home improvement project in 1991. The trial court found the present action barred by the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel and dismissed the action. We affirm.
FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS BELOW
Homeowners, appellants Aiko and Jack Ogata, entered into a contract with respondents, J. G. Construction Co. and James S. Greding, to construct an addition to their existing residence and to make certain repairs to the existing structure, including repairs to the roof. Specifically, the contract provided respondents were to repair the existing roof by adding composite shingles over the existing double layer of shingles.
In June 1993 respondents claimed they had completed all projects contemplated in the parties' contract. In 1996 appellants brought suit against respondents alleging breach of contract and also asserting claims of negligence, poor workmanship, fraud and personal injury. Among other claims, appellants claimed damages for a water leak in the roof. John Rhine, appellants' expert in the first litigation conducted an inspection of the home improvement project and filed a report containing his numerous findings. Regarding the roof leaks, Mr. Rhine stated: â€
