ALJDEC decisions subject to certification as final

08F-P0199-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2009-02-02

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

HEARING: January 29th, 2009; 9:00 a.m. APPEARANCES: Complainant, Mr. Joseph Magnet, Sr., represented himself. Arizona Premier Glass, LLC, was represented by Mr. Thomas Pace, Qualifying Party. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Grant Winston _____________________________________________________________________ The administrative hearing of this matter was held in the Office of Administrative Hearings, Tucson. Testimony was heard and other evidence admitted to the record, and, based on the entire record, the following Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Recommended Order are made. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Respondent Arizona Premier Glass, LLC, is, and during all time material hereto was, a contractor licensed by and doing business in the State of Arizona, holding Class K-65 License number 202206. 2. Complainant Mr. Joseph Magnet, Sr., is a homeowner residing in Show Low, Arizona, and this matter concerns his Complaint filed against the Respondent relative to the purchase and installation of a shower stall door at Complainant’s residence in late 2007. 3. The Complaint was filed January 23rd, 2008, and alleges that the door installed was not the same door as Complainant ordered, and was defectively installed. 4. The Complaint was assigned to Registrar of Contractors Inspector Tom Sandoval, who conducted a job site inspection and as a result of his inspection sent a letter to the parties indicating that the Registrar would require no corrective action to be performed by the Respondent as the door was the style ordered by the Complainant and as properly installed. 5. Complainant disagreed with the Inspector’s assessment of the situation and requested an administrative hearing be held. The hearing was scheduled, noticed and held as indicated hereinabove. 6. The only two witnesses called to testify at the hearing were the Complainant and the Respondent’s Qualifying Party who had also been in charge of the installation, Mr. Thomas Pace. 7. As to the issue of the door being improperly hung, Complainant testified that the door was out-of-plumb by approximately one inch, but admitted that Respondent had returned after the Complaint was filed but before the Inspector’s job site inspection, and corrected the condition. Respondent Mr. Pace testified that the door was never out-of-plumb so much as one inch, and was out of plumb at most approximately 1/16”. He testified that simply to appease the Complainant he performed a minor adjustment of the door which required about one minute of his time. In either event, the finding of the Inspector was correct: at the time of the job site inspection the door was properly hung. The door is properly hung now. 8. Complainant failed to produce any substantial evidence that the door delivered by Respondent was not the door ordered. Complainant testified so, but Respondent testified contrarily. Neither party produced any written documentation of the manufacturer’s specifications or a purchase order that would support either contention. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. This administrative hearing was held under authority of and pursuant to A.R.S. 32-1156, and A.R.S. 41-1092. 2. Respondent is charged in the instant Citation and Complaint with possible violations of A.R.S. 32-1154.A.2, 7, and 3 (namely, A.A.C. R4-9-108, Workmanship Standards). 3. There is insufficient evidence to conclude that Respondent deviated from plans or specifications or codes in violation of A.R.S. 32-1154.A.2, or violated the workmanship standards at A.A.C. in violation of A.R.S. 32-1154.A.3. 4. There is no evidence of any other wrongful or fraudulent act by this Respondent in the facts of this case in violation of A.R.S. 32-1154.A.7. RECOMMENDED ORDER In view of the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law it is hereby recommended that Citation and Complaint No. P08-0199, together with the Complaint on which it is based, be dismissed on the effective date of this Order (40 days after the date of service appearing on the Registrar’s certification on the Order). In the event of certification of the Administrative Law Judge’s Decision and Order by the Director of the Office of Administrative Hearings, then the effective date of the Order shall be 40 days after the date of that certification. Done this day, January 30th, 2009.

______________________________________ Grant Winston Administrative Law Judge

Original transmitted by mail this ____ day of ____________, 2009, to:

Registrar of Contractors Armando Contreras 3838 N. Central Ave. Phoenix, AZ 85012

By ___________________________

-----------------------

Office of Administrative Hearings 100 N. Stone Ave., Suite 704 Tucson, AZ 85701 520-628-5488 Fax: 520-628-5575 www.azoah.com