ALJDEC decisions subject to certification as final

09F-2628-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2009-08-12

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

HEARING: August 12, 2009. APPEARANCES: Infinity Floor Coverings, Inc. was represented by its president, John Slater. Slade Construction, L.L.C. did not appear. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Brian Brendan Tully _____________________________________________________________________ Based upon the evidence of record, the Administrative Law Judge makes the following Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Recommended Order: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Slade Construction, L.L.C. (“Respondent”) is the holder of License No. 165290, a Class KB-01 contracting license issued by the Registrar of Contractors (“Registrar”). 2. Infinity Floor Coverings, Inc. (“Complainant”) is a contractor licensed by the Registrar. 3. Complainant filed a written Complaint with the Registrar alleging statutory violations by Respondent. The Registrar designated the Complaint as Case No. 09-2628. 4. The Registrar issued a Citation and Complaint in Case No. 09-2628 alleging violations by Respondent of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A) (7), (11), and (13), specifically A.R.S. § 32-1124(B). 5. The Registrar forwarded Case No. 09-2628 to the Office of Administrative Hearings, an independent agency, for formal hearing. 6. The Registrar issued a Notice of Hearing in Case No. 09-2628 advising the parties of the time, date, and location of the evidentiary hearing. The Notice of Hearing was sent to the parties at their addresses of record with the Registrar. 7. The commencement of the scheduled hearing was delayed 15 minutes to allow for the late arrival of Respondent’s authorized representative. After the delay, the Administrative Law Judge conducted the hearing in Respondent’s absence. 8. Respondent served as the general contractor for a commercial project for Dr. Sam Cox at his office located at 2970 N. Litchfield Road, #120, Goodyear, Arizona. 9. The parties entered into a written agreement dated March 28, 2008, wherein Complainant agreed to perform subcontracting work for Respondent on the subject project. 10. The agreement provided for a contract price of $19,866.00. 11. Respondent’s contracting license number does not appear in the parties’ written agreement. 12. Complainant completed its scope of work, but it has not received any payment of the contract price from Respondent. 13. Respondent’s failure to pay the contract price to Complainant is a wrongful act that substantially injured Complainant. 14. A review of the Registrar’s official electronic records reveals that there are 20 open complaints and 8 resolved/settled/withdrawn complaints listed against Respondent’s contracting license. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The Registrar has jurisdiction over Respondent and the subject matter in this case. 2. Pursuant to A.A.C. R2-19-119(B), Complainant has the burden of proof in this matter. The standard of proof is preponderance of the evidence. A.A.C. R2-19-119(A). 3. Respondent violated the provisions of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A) (11), as cited in the Citation and Complaint issued by the Registrar. The above- provided Findings of Fact support this conclusion. 4. Respondent violated the provisions of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A) (7), as cited in the Citation and Complaint issued by the Registrar. The above- provided Findings of Fact support this conclusion. 5. Respondent violated the provisions of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A) (13), specifically A.R.S. § 32-1124(B), as cited in the Citation and Complaint issued by the Registrar. The above-provided Findings of Fact support this conclusion. RECOMMENDED ORDER Respondent’s License No. 115998 shall be revoked on the effective date of the Order entered in Case No. 09-2628. If Respondent pays the sum of $19,866.00 to Complainant and submits written proof to the Registrar of its compliance with the provisions of A.R.S. § 32-1124(B) on or before the effective date of the Order entered in Case No. 09-2628, then the above-provided license revocation shall not take place, but instead Respondent’s License No. 115998 shall be placed on suspension for a period of five days followed immediately by a period of disciplinary probation for 120 days. This alternative penalty shall commence, if at all, on the effective date of the Order entered in Case No. 09-2628. In the event of certification of the Administrative Law Judge Decision by the Director of the Office of Administrative Hearings, the effective date of the Order will be 40 days from the date of that certification.

Done this day, August 12, 2009

______________________________________ Brian Brendan Tully 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