CJ-2026-00060 - Rachel Baugh v. Grogan Precision Projects, LLC

What's This Case About?

Let’s be real: you don’t sue a contractor for $10,000 over a pergola unless something went spectacularly wrong. And by wrong, we don’t mean “slightly crooked beam” wrong. We mean “you paid $18,000 and got a Frankenstein’s monster of concrete, half-built wood frames, and landscaping that looks like a raccoon threw up” wrong. That’s the situation Rachel Baugh found herself in — a homeowner who just wanted a nice outdoor space to sip iced tea and Instagram her garden, only to get ghosted by a contractor and left with a backyard that looks like a construction site after a tornado. Welcome to Crazy Civil Court, where DIY dreams go to die.

Rachel Baugh is a regular homeowner in Sapulpa, Oklahoma — Creek County, to be precise — living at 185 W. Fairlane Court, where she owns her property and presumably just wanted to upgrade her curb appeal without turning her life into a Fixer Upper horror episode. Enter Grogan Precision Projects, LLC, a local contractor business that, based on the name, sounds like it should be building missile silos, not backyard pergolas. But hey, they said they could do it. They said they had the skills. They even gave her a detailed estimate — a phrase that, in the world of home improvement, is often just code for “we’re going to charge you this until we don’t.” The original quote? $19,065. After some negotiation, it came down to a cool $18,000 — a serious chunk of change for a pergola, concrete work, a shed, a walkway, and some landscaping. But Rachel, ever the optimist, wrote the check on June 12, 2025, probably imagining summer evenings under a beautifully crafted wooden latticework, not knowing she was funding a one-way ticket to Disappointmentville.

The project started — or at least, it claimed to start. Rachel even did her part: she handed over a photographic example of the pergola she wanted. Not a vague Pinterest board. Not a hand-drawn sketch on a napkin. A photo. The kind of clarity contractors beg for. And Grogan Precision Projects, LLC, being in the business of doing these kinds of projects, allegedly nodded, smiled, took the money, and said, “We got this.” But then… crickets. The workers started showing up less. Then not at all. The project stalled. And when Rachel finally took a hard look at what had been done? Let’s just say it wasn’t “precision.” The work didn’t match the photo. It didn’t match industry standards. It didn’t even match basic competence. Concrete was poured wrong. The pergola looked like it was assembled by someone who’d never seen one before. Key parts of the job were left completely unfinished — like the contractor just packed up mid-sentence. It wasn’t a project. It was a construction crime scene.

So why are we in court? Because Rachel didn’t just want to vent on Yelp. She lawyered up — Kania Law Office, to be exact — and filed a petition in Creek County District Court, alleging two major legal wrongs. First: Breach of Contract. That’s legalese for “you took my money and didn’t do what you promised.” Simple, right? She paid $18,000 for a completed project with specific features. They didn’t finish it. They didn’t do it right. That’s a breach — a material one, no less, which is the legal way of saying “this wasn’t a small mistake, this was a total failure.” Second claim: Breach of Implied Warranty of Quality. Now, that sounds fancy, but it basically means: “I trusted you as a professional, and you gave me garbage.” In construction law, there’s an unspoken promise that when a contractor takes your money, they’re not just building something — they’re building it right. With skill. With proper materials. In a workmanlike manner. Grogan Precision Projects allegedly failed on all counts. The materials didn’t match the example. The craftsmanship was subpar. The whole thing was a mess. So Rachel isn’t just saying, “You didn’t finish.” She’s saying, “You ruined it — and now I have to pay someone else to fix your mess.”

And how much does she want? $10,000. Not the full $18,000 she paid — just half of it, in damages. But here’s the thing: $10,000 isn’t chicken scratch. That’s a new pergola. That’s a second contractor to come in and demolish the botched work, re-pour concrete, rebuild from scratch, and maybe even put in a tiny memorial plaque for the original contractor’s ego. It’s not punitive — she’s not asking for a million-dollar slap on the wrist. She’s asking to be made whole. To not have to pay twice for the same project. And honestly? In the world of home improvement, $10,000 is the price of peace of mind. It’s the cost of not having to explain to every guest, “No, the pergola isn’t supposed to lean like the Tower of Pisa.”

Now, here’s our take: the most absurd part of this whole saga isn’t even the bad work. It’s the name. Grogan Precision Projects. “Precision”? Buddy, if this was precision, I’m a Supreme Court justice. This wasn’t precision. This was procrastination, poor planning, and possibly a complete disregard for the concept of “showing up.” And Rachel? She did everything right. She paid on time. She gave clear instructions. She trusted a licensed contractor to do a licensed contractor’s job. And instead of a finished project, she got radio silence and a yard that looks like a construction zone abandoned during a zombie apocalypse. We’re not saying she’s 100% blameless — maybe she should’ve checked references, maybe she should’ve staged the payments — but come on. She gave them a photo. How do you mess that up?

We’re rooting for Rachel. Not because she’s flawless, but because she’s the homeowner who played by the rules and got played. And we’re low-key hoping the judge makes Grogan Precision Projects rebuild the whole thing — in front of her house — while wearing matching jumpsuits that say “We Are Not Precise.” But realistically? She just wants her $10,000 back so she can hire someone who knows which end of a hammer to use. And honestly? That’s not too much to ask. When you’re paying for “precision,” you shouldn’t have to bring your own quality control.

Case Overview

$10,000 Demand Jury Trial Petition

Jurisdiction

District Court, Oklahoma

Filing Attorney

Charles J. Kania

Kania Law Office

Relief Sought

$10,000 Monetary

$0 Punitive

Plaintiffs

Rachel Baugh individual
Rep: Kania Law Office

Defendants

Grogan Precision Projects, LLC business

Claims

#	Cause of Action	Description
1	Breach of Contract	Plaintiff alleges that Defendant breached contract by not completing project properly
2	Breach of Implied Warranty of Quality	Plaintiff alleges that Defendant breached implied warranty by providing substandard materials and work

Petition Text

1,057 words

IN THE DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR CREEK COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA RACHEL BAUGH, Plaintiff, v. GROGAN PRECISION PROJECTS, LLC, Defendant. Case No. CJ 2026-60 Jury Trial Demanded Attorney Lien Claimed ROBERT GETCHELL PETITION Plaintiff, Rachel Baugh, by and through her attorneys of record, Charles J. Kania, Zachary A. Waxman, W. Doug Thomas, Jonathan F. Keeling and Spencer B. Coffey of Kania Law Office, and for her claims and causes of action against the Defendant, Grogan Precision Projects, LLC., alleges as follows: 1. Plaintiff, Rachel Baugh, is a resident of Creek County in Sapulpa, Oklahoma, and currently resides at 185 W. Fairlane Ct., Sapulpa, Oklahoma 74066. 2. Defendant, Grogan Precision Projects, is a Limited Liability Company, organized under the laws of Oklahoma, and during all times relevant to this action, had its principal place of operation in Creek County, State of Oklahoma. 3. Venue is proper because the contract between the parties giving rise to the claims in this case was formed in Creek County, Oklahoma. 4. Jurisdiction is proper as the amount of relief sought is greater than $10,000.00, and the Court has both personal and subject matter jurisdiction over the parties and causes of action stated herein. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS 5. Paragraphs 1-4 are hereby incorporated by reference in their entirety. 6. Plaintiff, Rachel Baugh, is the owner of the property located at 185 W. Fairlane Ct., Sapulpa, Oklahoma 74066 (hereinafter “Property”). 7. At a time material hereto, Plaintiff decided to upgrade her home with the addition of a pergola and landscaping. 8. On or about June 8, 2025, the Defendant, Grogan Precision Projects, LLC, through its owner, provided the Plaintiff, Rachel Baugh, with a detailed estimate for the Plaintiff’s project. 9. The Defendant is in the business as a contractor and regularly completes projects similar to those of the Plaintiffs. 10. The scope of the project was defined by the Defendant’s written estimate and the Plaintiff’s photographic example of the required results. 11. The Defendant’s estimate totaled $19,065.00 and was amended by agreement to $18,000.00. 12. The Defendant accepted the Plaintiff’s project, took payment, and began working on the project. 13. The Plaintiff, Rachel Baugh, paid the Defendant, Grogan Precision Projects, LLC, by check on June 12, 2025, in the amount of $18,000.00, as agreed by the parties and set forth in the amended Estimate. 14. Upon the inception of the project, Plaintiff, Rachel Baugh, provided the Defendant, Grogan Precision Projects, LLC, with a photographic example of the specifications of the required pergola design, thereby reducing the likelihood of misunderstanding and leaving less room for error in the execution of the work. 15. Grogan Precision Projects, LLC, told the Plaintiff that they possessed the skill, experience, and knowledge to complete the Plaintiff’s project in an adequate and workmanlike manner. 16. The Defendant continuously delayed the project and then stopped coming to the Project site. 17. The work that was completed by the Defendant did not comply with the required specifications as agreed. 18. The work performed did not conform to the industry standards for proper workmanship. 19. The Defendant also left material parts of the project incomplete. 20. The Defendant’s actions and omissions related to the Plaintiff’s project amount to a material breach of contract for which Plaintiff is entitled to an award of damages against the Defendant as prayed herein. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION BREACH OF CONTRACT 21. Plaintiff repeats, reiterates, and realleges each and every allegation of the preceding paragraphs as if set forth herein, verbatim and fully at length. 22. The parties came together and had a meeting of the minds, negotiated, and formed a contract under which the Defendant agreed to perform several improvements to the Plaintiff’s property. 23. There was adequate consideration by both parties. 24. The parties' agreement formed a legally enforceable contract under Oklahoma Law. 25. The Defendant breached the Contract by not completing the project in a proper manner, consistent with the Plaintiff’s expectations. 26. As a direct and proximate cause of the Defendant’s breach of contract. Plaintiff suffered and continues to suffer damages in an amount exceeding $10,000.00. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION BREACH OF IMPLIED WARRANTY OF QUALITY 27. The Plaintiff repeats, reiterates, and realleges each and every allegation of the preceding paragraphs as if set forth herein, verbatim and fully at length. 28. Plaintiff informed Defendant, at the time the contract was negotiated, of the specific purpose for which Defendant was being retained, namely, multiple improvements to the Plaintiff’s property, including but not limited to pouring concrete, constructing a shed and pergola, work way, and landscaping. 29. Plaintiff relied on the Defendant’s skill and/or knowledge to select and furnish suitable materials and skills, and Defendant knew or had reason to know that Plaintiff was so relying. 30. The Defendant is in the business of completing projects, like Plaintiff’s for money. 31. The Defendant accepted the Project and agreed to complete the Project. 32. Defendants impliedly warranted that their work would be done in a good, workmanlike, and suitable manner and in full accordance with the provisions and conditions of their agreement, local construction practices, industry standards, specifications, and the laws of Oklahoma. 33. The work performed by the Defendant was carelessly, negligently, and improperly executed. 34. As a direct result of the Defendant’s careless, negligent, and improper performance of its contractual obligations, the Plaintiff is now required to retain another contractor to redo, repair, and complete the work for which the Defendant was paid. 35. The materials and labor were not sufficient for Plaintiff’s purposes in that much of the materials did not comply with the example provided to Defendant before the Project was accepted. 36. Defendant breached the implied warranty by providing substandard materials and/or not performing the work in a workmanlike manner. 37. The Defendant, Grogan Precision Projects, LLC, is guilty and liable for breach of implied warranty. 38. As a direct and proximate cause of the Defendant’s breach of the implied warranty, Plaintiff has suffered damages in an amount exceeding $10,000.00. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully prays for judgment against the Defendant for damages in an amount exceeding Ten Thousand Dollars ($10,000.00) and all other relief which Plaintiff may be entitled, together with pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, reasonable attorney’s fees, consultant fees, and the costs of this action. Signature on Next Page Respectfully submitted, [signature] Charles J. Kania, OBA #20512 Zachary A. Waxman, OBA #22761 *W. Doug Thomas, OBA #21554 Mari C. Riera, OBA 33598 Jonathan F. Keeling, OBA 36685 Spencer B. Coffey, OBA 36598 5319 S. Lewis Ave. Suite 120 Tulsa, Oklahoma 74105 918-743-2233 Ext. 4 918-743-2244 facsimile www.kanialaw.com Attorney for Plaintiff