Case Name: OCG COMMUNICATIONS, LLC and The Official Plan Committee of Omniplex Communications Group, LLC, Appellants, v. GENERAL ELECTRIC CAPITAL CORPORATION, Respondent
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2007-07-24
Citations: 234 S.W.3d 540
Docket Number: No. ED 88740
Parties: OCG COMMUNICATIONS, LLC and The Official Plan Committee of Omniplex Communications Group, LLC, Appellants, v. GENERAL ELECTRIC CAPITAL CORPORATION, Respondent.
Judges: Before CLIFFORD H. AHRENS, P.J., MARY K. HOFF, J., and NANNETTE A. BAKER, J.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 234
Pages: 540–541

Head Matter:
OCG COMMUNICATIONS, LLC and The Official Plan Committee of Omniplex Communications Group, LLC, Appellants, v. GENERAL ELECTRIC CAPITAL CORPORATION, Respondent.
No. ED 88740.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.
July 24, 2007.
Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied Sept. 12, 2007.
Application for Transfer Denied Oct. 30, 2007.
John S. Sandberg, Stephen P. Niemira, Aaron D. French, St. Louis, MO, for appellant.
Stephen H. Rovak, David P. Stoeberl, St. Louis, MO, for respondent.
Before CLIFFORD H. AHRENS, P.J., MARY K. HOFF, J., and NANNETTE A. BAKER, J.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
OCG Communications, LLC and the Official Plan Committee of Omniplex Communications Group, LLC (collectively "OCG") appeals from a judgment of the trial court granting summary judgment to General Electric Capital Corporation ("GECC"). OCG claims four points on appeal. OCG claims that the trial court erred in granting GECC's second amended motion for summary judgment because: 1) res judicata does not apply to bar OCG's claim against GECC; 2) the doctrines of judicial estoppel, equitable estoppel and waiver do not apply to bar OCG's claim against GECC; 3) the motion was granted on the basis of affirmative defenses before GECC raised any of those affirmative defenses in an answer; 4) GECC submitted supplemental briefs to the trial court, in violation of Rule 74.04, that were relied on by the trial court in its judgment.
No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, which sets forth the facts and reasons for this order.
We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).