ALJDEC decisions subject to certification as final

08F-T1025-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2009-10-16

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

HEARING: October 13, 2009; 11:00 a.m. APPEARANCES: Complainant Brown Eagle Builders, LLC was represented by Mr. Joe Torres, Qualifying Party. Respondent Infrasys Corporation was represented by Mr. Mike Mullet, Qualifying Party. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Grant Winston _____________________________________________________________________ Based on the entire record, the following Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Recommended Order are made: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Complainant Brown Eagle Builders, LLC has brought this Complaint against Respondent Infrasys Corporation alleging that Respondent’s workmanship on the job was below minimum standards. 2. Complainant hired Respondent to perform sewer tap work and saw cutting of concrete on a project in Tucson, Arizona in early 2008. The written contract was prepared by Respondent. 3. The problem between these parties arose when a portion of the concrete was broken and had to be replaced. Complainant alleges that Respondent improperly performed the work and the negligence resulted in the break. Respondent alleges that someone else besides it caused the concrete to break. 4. The broken concrete had to be repaired or replaced, and now the Complainant seeks to hold the Respondent responsible. 5. Respondent alleges that it is not responsible for the broken concrete and asserts that Complainant has not paid it for the work it properly performed. 6. The only two witnesses who testified at the hearing were the Complainant’s Qualifying Party Mr. Joe Torres, and Respondent’s Qualifying Party Mr. Mike Mullett. There is no substantial credible evidence of what caused the problem with the concrete, who is responsible or who owes anybody money. The evidence is merely the testimony of two witnesses making accusations against each other. 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, 3 (namely, A.A.C. R4-9-108, Workmanship Standards), and 13 (namely, A.R.S. § 32-1158, Minimum Elements of a Contract). 3. There is no sufficient evidence to conclude that Respondent violated any of the sections of the contractor laws set forth in the Citation and Complaint. RECOMMENDED ORDER In view of the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law it is hereby recommended that Citation and Complaint T08-1025, 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, the effective date of the Order shall be 40 days after the date of that certification. Done this day, October 16, 2009.

______________________________________ Grant Winston Administrative Law Judge

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

William A. Mundell, Director Registrar of Contractors c/o Legal Department 3838 N. Central Ave. Phoenix, AZ 85012

By ___________________________ -----------------------

Office of Administrative Hearings 1400 West Washington, Suite 101 Phoenix, Arizona 85007 (602) 542-9826