ALJDEC decisions subject to certification as final

2015A-1303-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2015-12-08

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

HEARING: December 7, 2015 APPEARANCES: Aart Leusink for Complainant; no one appeared for Respondent ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Thomas Shedden _____________________________________________________________________ FINDINGS OF FACT 1. On October 14, 2015, the Registrar of Contractors (“ROC”) issued a Notice of Hearing setting the above-captioned matter for hearing at 8:00 a.m. December 7, 2015, at the Office of Administrative Hearings in Phoenix, Arizona. 2. No representative for Respondent P I C Construction Inc., DBA Solar Sense and Epcon Construction appeared at the scheduled time and the matter was convened in its absence at about 8:20 a.m. 3. Respondent holds license numbers B.276134-R and B-1.276571-C issued by ROC.[1] 4. In June 2014, Complainant Renusol America Inc. entered an agreement under which Renusol sold to Respondent solar PV mounting systems. 5. Between October 21 and December 5, 2014, Renusol made five shipments of products ordered by Respondent. Renusol submitted to Respondent five invoices totaling $31,069.64. 6. As of the hearing date, Respondent had not made any payments to Renusol for the shipments and invoices at issue. 7. Renusol’s president, Aart Leusink, testified to the effect that based on its interactions with Respondent, Respondent may be using a number of company names and Renusol was prosecuting this matter to help ensure that others would not find themselves in the situation Renusol is in. 8. On March 24, 2015, Renusol filed with ROC a Complaint against Respondent. 9. On July 2, 2015, ROC issued a Citation alleging that Respondent may have violated Ariz. Rev. Stat. section 32-1154(A)(10). CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. A party asserting a claim, right, or entitlement bears the burden of proof; a party asserting an affirmative defense has the burden of establishing the affirmative defense. The standard of proof on all issues in this matter is that of a preponderance of the evidence. Ariz. Admin. Code § R2-19-119. 2. A preponderance of the evidence is: The greater weight of the evidence, not necessarily established by the greater number of witnesses testifying to a fact but by evidence that has the most convincing force; superior evidentiary weight that, though not sufficient to free the mind wholly from all reasonable doubt, is still sufficient to incline a fair and impartial mind to one side of the issue rather than the other.

Black’s Law Dictionary 1373 (10th ed. 2014). 3. Statutes should be interpreted to provide a fair and sensible result. Gutierrez v. Industrial Commission of Arizona, 226 Ariz. 395, 249 P.3d 1095 (2011)(citation omitted); State v. McFall, 103 Ariz. 234, 238, 439 P.2d 805, 809 (1968) ("Courts will not place an absurd and unreasonable construction on statutes."). 4. “Statutes shall be liberally construed to effect their objects and to promote justice.” Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 1-211(B). 5. The purpose of the Registrar’s licensing statutes is to protect the public from unscrupulous, unqualified, and financially irresponsible contractors. See Aesthetic Property Maintenance v. Capital Indem. Corp., 183 Ariz. 74, 900 P. 2d 1210 (1995). 6. Ariz. Rev. Stat section 32-1154(A) provides that: 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: …. 10. Failure by a licensee or agent or official of a licensee to pay monies in excess of seven hundred fifty dollars when due for materials or services rendered in connection with the licensee's operations as a contractor when the licensee has the capacity to pay or, if the licensee lacks the capacity to pay, when the licensee has received sufficient monies as payment for the particular construction work project or operation for which the services or materials were rendered or purchased.

7. The preponderance of the evidence shows that Respondent violated Ariz. Rev. Stat section 32-1154(A)(10) as alleged. ORDER IT IS ORDERED that on the effective date of the final Order in this matter P I C Construction Inc., DBA Solar Sense and Epcon Construction’s license numbers B.276134-R, B-1.276571-C, B.220086-R are revoked unless ROC receives and accepts written verification that P I C Construction Inc., DBA Solar Sense and Epcon Construction has paid to Renusol America Inc. $31,069.64 in certified funds. 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 is forty days after the date of that certification. Done this day, December 8, 2015.

/s/ Thomas Shedden Thomas Shedden Administrative Law Judge

Transmitted electronically to:

Jeffrey Fleetham, Director Registrar of Contractors ----------------------- [1] ROC’s website shows Respondent’s license numbers as 276134 and 276571. Consistent with existing policy, in this Decision the numbers set out in the Notice of Hearing’s caption are used. Based on ROC’s website, it appears that neither B.220086-R nor 220086 is a valid license number.

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

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