ALJDEC decisions subject to certification as final

2010A-308472824-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2011-05-17

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

HEARING: April 27, 2011 APPEARANCES: Bert T. Luontela appeared personally. Rudy Glass Company, Inc. was represented by its authorized representative, John Babos. 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. Rudy Glass Company, Inc. (“Respondent”) is the holder of License No. 053067, a Class C-65 contracting license issued by the Registrar of Contractors (“Registrar”). 2. Respondent and Bert T. Luontela (“Complainant”) entered into a written agreement for the installation of an enclosed shower and three mirrors for a contract price of $1,529.25. 3. The contract specified that the enclosure would be 69 3/8” in height. 4. Complainant filed a written Complaint with the Registrar alleging that Respondent failed to construct the shower enclosure per specifications because the height of the shower door measures 67 3/8”. Complainant also alleged that there is a gap between the top of the shower door and the bottom of the header. 5. The Registrar designated Complainant’s Complaint as Case No. 2010- [number redacted]. 6. The Registrar issued a Citation and Complaint in Case No. 2010- [number redacted] charging Respondent with violating the provisions of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A) (2) and (3), namely A.A.C. R4-9-108. 7. The Registrar forwarded Case No. 2010-[number redacted] to the Office of Administrative Hearings, an independent agency, for an evidentiary hearing. 8. The Registrar’s assigned inspector, Bill Redman, found that Respondent’s installation of the shower enclosure meets workmanship standards. 9. Robert Goodsell of Arizona Shower Door testified that industry standards are to measure to the top of the shower enclosure rather than the top of the glass door. 10. Mr. Goodsell further testified that it is standard in the industry to have a gap between the top of the glass door and the bottom of the enclosure’s header. 11. The evidence of record established that Respondent installed Complainant’s shower enclosure in a workmanlike manner and to specifications. 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 by a preponderance of the evidence. A.A.C. R2-19-119(A). 3. Complainant failed to sustain his burden of establishing that Respondent violated the provisions of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A) (2) and (3), namely A.A.C. R4-9-108, as charged in the Citation and Complaint issued by the Registrar. On the contrary, the evidence of record established that Respondent installed Complainant’s shower enclosure to specifications and in a workmanlike manner. RECOMMENDED ORDER The Citation and Complaint in Case No. 2010-[number redacted] shall be dismissed on the effective date of the Order entered in this matter. 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, May 17, 2011.

/s/ Brian Brendan Tully Administrative Law Judge

Transmitted electronically to:

William A. Mundell, Director Registrar of Contractors -----------------------

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