ALJDEC decisions subject to certification as final

2014A-2161-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2014-09-25

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

HEARING: September 24, 2014, at 8:00 a.m. APPEARANCES: 4 Sanchez Pool Plastering LLC (hereinafter “Sanchez” or “Respondent”) was represented by its member-owner, Felipe Sanchez. The Arizona Registrar of Contractors (hereinafter “Registrar”) was represented by Assistant Attorney General, Seth T. Hargraves, Esq. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: M. Douglas _____________________________________________________________________

The Registrar brings this matter alleging violations of the contractor licensing statutes. The parties appeared and entered into stipulations, agreements, and admissions as follows: FINDINGS OF FACT Sanchez admits the following factual allegations as set forth in the Citation and Notice of hearing issued in this matter by the Registrar on July 29, 2014: 1. On October 3, 2004, the Registrar issued License No. C36R.200264-R (now listed as CR36.200264-D) to Respondent, an Arizona limited liability company.

2. On July 13, 2012, the Registrar issued License No. L-36.279899- C (now listed as CR36.279899-D) to Respondent.

3. On July 29, 2012, the Registrar issued License No. C48R.280255- R (now listed as CR48.280255-D) to Respondent.

4. On or about October 7, 2013, Amber Watkins, hereinafter “Ms. Watkins,” filed a complaint with the Registrar alleging poor work by Respondent in the performance of its March 11, 2013 contract to remodel a swimming pool at Ms. Watkins’ residence located at 947 N. Ramada in Mesa, Arizona for $12,450.00. . 5. Respondent’s March 11, 2013 contract with Ms. Watkins does not contain all of the elements required by A.R.S. § 32-1158(B).

6. On or about December 19, 2013, the Registrar conducted a jobsite inspection and subsequently issued a Corrective Work Order directing Respondent to take appropriate corrective action at Ms. Watkins’ property.

7. Respondent has failed to take appropriate corrective action to comply with the Registrar’s February 3, 2014 Corrective Work Order.

Sanchez admits the following violations as set forth in the Citation and Notice of hearing issued in this matter by the Registrar on July 29, 2014: COUNT ONE

A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) provides grounds for suspension or revocation of a license as follows:

A. The holder of a license or any person listed on a license pursuant to this chapter shall not commit any of the following acts or omissions:

3. Violation of any rule adopted by the Registrar, namely A.A.C. R4-9-108.

The conduct and circumstances set forth in Paragraphs 1-7 above constitute a violation of this section. Respondent’s work at Ms. Watkins’ residence does not meet minimum construction standards.

COUNT TWO

A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(13) (currently renumbered as A.R.S. § 32- 1154(A)(12)) provides grounds for suspension or revocation of a license as follows:

A. The holder of a license or any person listed on a license pursuant to this chapter shall not commit any of the following acts or omissions:

13. Failure in any material respect to comply with this chapter, namely A.R.S. § 32-1158(B).

The conduct and circumstances set forth in Paragraphs 1-7 above constitute a violation of this section. Respondent’s March 11, 2013 contract with Ms. Watkins does not contain all of the elements required by A.R.S. § 32-1158(B).

COUNT THREE

A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(23) (currently renumbered as A.R.S. § 32- 1154(A)(22)) provides grounds for suspension or revocation of a license as follows:

A. The holder of a license or any person listed on a license pursuant to this chapter shall not commit any of the following acts or omissions:

23. Failure to take appropriate corrective action to comply with this chapter or with rules adopted pursuant to this chapter without valid justification within a reasonable period of time after receiving a written directive from the registrar. The written directive shall set forth the time within which the contractor is to complete the remedial action. The time permitted for compliance shall not be less than fifteen days from the date of issuance of the directive. A license shall not be revoked or suspended nor shall any other penalty be imposed for a violation of this paragraph until after a hearing has been held.

The conduct and circumstances set forth in Paragraphs 1-7 above constitute a violation of this section. Respondent has failed to take appropriate corrective action at Ms. Watkins’ property as required by the Registrar’s written directive, the February 3, 2014 Corrective Work Order.

COUNT FOUR

A.R.S. §32-1154(A)(21) (currently renumbered as A.R.S. § 32- 1154(A)(20)) provides grounds for suspension or revocation of a license as follows:

A. The holder of a license or any person listed on a license pursuant to this chapter shall not commit any of the following acts or omissions:

21. Having a person named on the license who is or was named on any other license in this state or in another state that is under suspension or revocation for any act or omission that occurs while the person is or was named on the license unless the prior revocation was based solely on a violation of this paragraph.

Sanchez stipulated and agreed that License Nos. CR36.200264-D, CR36.279899- D, and CR48.280255-D of 4 Sanchez Pool Plastering LLC shall be revoked by the Registrar for the admitted statutory violations. The Registrar stipulated and agreed not to impose a civil penalty against Sanchez for the admitted violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(23) (currently renumbered as A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22)). Felipe Sanchez (hereinafter “Mr. Sanchez”) confirmed that this was a voluntary settlement of the issues at hearing. Mr. Sanchez acknowledged that he was admitting all of the violations set forth in the July 29, 2014 Citation and Notice of Hearing issued in this matter. Mr. Sanchez acknowledged that he fully understood that License Nos. CR36.200264-D, CR36.279899-D, and CR48.280255-D of 4 Sanchez Pool Plastering LLC will be revoked by the Registrar for the admitted statutory violations. The fact that the parties’ agreement is knowingly and voluntarily made is confirmed by an email from Sanchez’s attorney.[1]

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Compromise of controversies is favored by law. Sturges v. Bennett, 47 Ariz. 470, 56 P.2d 1038 (Ariz. 1936); Dansby v. Buck, 92 Ariz. 1, 373 P.2d (Ariz. 1962). The settlement reached and submitted during the hearing of this matter, having been found to be reasonable and voluntarily made, warrants the termination of the instant hearing. RECOMMENDed order In view of the foregoing, it is recommended that License Nos. CR36.200264-D, CR36.279899-D, and CR48.280255-D of 4 Sanchez Pool Plastering LLC shall be revoked by the Registrar for the admitted statutory violations. In the event of certification of this 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 the certification. Done this day, September 25, 2014. /s/ M. Douglas Administrative Law Judge

Transmitted electronically to:

William A. Mundell, Director Registrar of Contractors

----------------------- [1] See Exhibit 1 (9/23/14 Email).

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

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