ALJDEC decisions subject to certification as final

2011A-391-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2011-07-21

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

HEARING: July 5, 2011 APPEARANCES: R D S Electric, Inc. was represented by its authorized representative, Gary, McBee. Southwest Ramadas, L.L.C. did not appear. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Brian B. 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. R D S Electric, Inc. (“Complainant”) is the holder of License No. 069912, a Class C11 contracting license issued by the Registrar of Contractors (“Registrar”). 2. Southwest Ramadas, L.L.C. (“Respondent”) is the holder of License No. 170828, a Class B-3 contracting license issued by the Registrar. 3. On May 3, 2010, Respondent accepted Complainant’s Proposal/Work Authorization #10138 for Complainant to perform electrical work on a residence located at 197 N. Charlotte St., Queen Creek, Arizona. The parties agreed to a base price of $990.00, plus a finance charge of 1 ½% per month on accounts over 30 days. 4. During the subject project, Respondent requested that Complainant perform additional work. The scope of additional work was listed in a written change order dated July 7, 2010, for an additional price of $929.78. Although neither party signed the written change order, Complainant performed the additional scope of work as directed by Respondent. 5. Respondent failed to pay Complainant the total sum of $1,919.78 for the completed original scope of work and the additional scope of work. 6. There have been no complaints concerning Complainant’s scope of work. 7. Complainant filed a written Complaint with the Registrar alleging non- payment by Respondent in the amount of $1,919.78 plus interest. The Registrar designated the Complaint as Case No. 2011-391. 8. The Registrar issued a Citation and Complaint in Case No. 2011-391 charging Respondent with violating the provisions of A.R.S. § 32- 1154(A) (11). 9. The Registrar forwarded Case No. 2011-391 to the Office of Administrative Hearings, an independent agency, for an evidentiary hearing. 10. The Registrar issued a Notice of Hearing in Case No. 2011-391 that advised the parties of the time, date, and location of the formal hearing. The Notice of Hearing was sent to the parties at their addresses of record with the Registrar. 11. 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. 12. At hearing, Complainant presented credible evidence that established that Respondent owes Complainant the total sum of $1,919.78 plus interest for Complainant’s work performed on the subject project. 13. A review of the Registrar’s official electronic records reveals that Respondent’s contracting license was suspended by operation of law for lack of bond and suspended pending compliance with the Registrar’s Orders. There are two open complaints, two disciplined complaints, and one resolved/settled/withdrawn complaint 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.R.S. § 32-1154(C), the suspensions of Respondent’s contracting license do not deprive the Registrar of the authority to impose discipline against Respondent’s license for a proven statutory violation in this matter. 3. Pursuant to A.A.C. R2-19-109(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). 4. The evidence of record supports the conclusion that Respondent violated the provisions of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A) (11), as charged in the Citation and Complaint issued by the Registrar. RECOMMENDED ORDER Respondent’s License No. 170828 shall be revoked on the effective date of the Order entered in Case No. 2011-391. If Respondent provides written proof to the Registrar that Respondent has paid Complainant the sum of $1,919.78 plus accrued interest on or before the effective date of the Order entered in Case No. 2011-391, then the above-provided license revocation shall not take place, but instead that Respondent’s License No. 170828 shall be placed on disciplinary probation for a period of 60 days. This alternative penalty shall commence, if at all, on the effective date of the Order entered in Case No. 2011-391. 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, July 21, 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