ALJDEC decisions subject to certification as final

2015A-3366-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2015-10-09

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

HEARING: September 30, 2015 APPEARANCES: Jamal Kabroo for Applicant; John Tellier, Esq. for the Registrar of Contractors ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Thomas Shedden _____________________________________________________________________ FINDINGS OF FACT 1. On August 21, 2015, the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (“ROC”) issued a Notice of Hearing setting the above-captioned matter for hearing on September 30, 2015, at the Office of Administrative Hearings in Phoenix, Arizona. 2. The Notice of Hearing shows the issue as Applicant C & J Energy Solutions Inc.’s (“C & J”) appeal of ROC’s denial of its application for a contractor’s license. 3. Jamal Kabroo, one of C & J’s directors and owners, appeared and testified for C & J. ROC presented the testimony of Janna Yaw, a licensing reviewer. 4. ROC received C & J’s application for a CR-65 glazing contractor license on February 23, 2015. 5. In that application, C & J disclosed that Mr. Kabroo and part owner Manhal Kabro, had previously been on the contractor’s license held by Arizona Republic Windows (license number 207840).[1] 6. On December 8, 2008, Jason Tinonga, on behalf of Aegis Window & Door LLC (“Aegis”) filed with ROC a complaint alleging that Arizona Republic Windows failed to pay Aegis for materials received. 7. On May 14, 2009, ROC issued to Arizona Republic Windows a Citation and Complaint, in which ROC alleged that Arizona Republic Windows had violated Ariz. Rev. Stat. sections 32- 1154(A)(7) and (A)(11). 8. On October 30, 2009, ROC issued a Decision and Order providing that Arizona Republic Windows’ license would be suspended effective December 9, 2009, and that the suspension would remain in effect until ROC received proof that Arizona Republic Windows had paid to Aegis $7212.83. 9. On December 23, 2009, Arizona Republic Windows’ license was suspended. 10. In a Notice of License Denial dated July 20, 2015, ROC informed C & J that its application had been denied because as persons named on a suspended license, Mr. Kabroo and Mr. Kabro had failed to establish that they have the requisite good character.

11. Mr. Kabroo acknowledged that C & J owes Aegis the $7212.83, but he testified that he had met with Mr. Tinonga and they had agreed to a payment plan under which C & J would also begin to purchase windows from Aegis. 12. Mr. Kabroo also acknowledged however that Mr. Tinonga had not memorialized any such agreement and he testified that Mr. Tinonga had become unresponsive to C & J’s letters and phone calls. 13. According to Mr. Kabroo, this left him with no way to resolve the matter. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. C & J bears the burden of persuasion to show that its application should be granted. Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 41- 1092.07(G)(1). 2. The standard of proof on all issues in this matter is that of a preponderance of the evidence. Ariz. Admin. Code § R2-19-119. 3. 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 1301 (9th ed. 2009).

4. Ariz. Rev. Statute section 32-1122(D) provides that: To obtain or renew a license under this chapter, each person shall be of good character and reputation. Lack of good character and reputation may be established by showing that a person has … committed any act that, if committed or done by any licensed contractor, would be grounds for suspension or revocation of a contractor's license ….

5. Given that Arizona Republic Windows’ license was suspended and that the reason for that suspension has not been cured, C & J has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that Mr. Kabroo and Mr. Kabro are persons of good character within the meaning of Ariz. Rev. Stat. section 32-1122(D). 6. Consequently, C & J’s appeal should be dismissed. ORDER IT IS ORDERED that C & J Energy Solutions Inc.’s appeal is dismissed.

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 forty days after the date of that certification. Done this day, October 9, 2015.

/s/ Thomas Shedden Thomas Shedden Administrative Law Judge

Transmitted electronically to:

Jeffrey Fleetham, Director Registrar of Contractors ----------------------- [1] In the application C & J provided that Arizona Republic Windows’ license had been suspended and expired. Mr. Kabroo testified that this was based on information he found on ROC’s website in January this year. Ms. Yaw testified that license and complaint information “should” not be present after two years. Ms. Yaw however did not appear confident that it could not happen and she also testified to the effect that this was an issue for ROC’s IT department.

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

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