ALJDEC decisions subject to certification as final

2015A-3813-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2016-07-14

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

HEARING: July 14, 2016 APPEARANCES: Chad Kaffer and Frederick Davidon, Complainant’s attorneys; Beth and Patrick Flannery, Complainants; Guy Bluff, Respondent’s attorney; Middy Droeg, Respondent’s representative; Tim Pennington, Registrar of Contractors Investigator ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Dorinda M. Lang _____________________________________________________________________

FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Prior to the date of hearing in this matter, an arbitration decision was made in which the following findings of fact were made: a. That Complainants (named Respondents in the arbitration) materially breached the contract between the parties b. That the breach excused further performance by Respondent c. That Respondent did not abandon the work d. That Respondent did not fail to complete the project at the specified price e. That Respondent did not exceed the scope of work or agreed upon extras f. That Respondent performed no work under its Class B license while that license was suspended

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. This matter is within the jurisdiction of the Registrar of Contractors pursuant to A.R.S. §§ 32-1104(A)(4), 32-1154(B) and 32-1156. 2. The Citation and Complaint issued by the Registrar of Contractors in this matter alleged potential violations of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(1), (8), and (16). 3. A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(1) provides grounds for suspension or revocation of a contractor’s license for abandonment of a project. 4. A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(8) provides grounds for suspension or revocation of a contractor’s license for refusal to complete a project for the agreed-upon price. 5. A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(7) provides for suspension or revocation of a contractor’s license for the “doing of a fraudulent act by the licensee as a contractor resulting in another person being substantially injured”. 6. A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(16) provides grounds for suspension or revocation of a contractor’s license for doing work that is outside of the scope of the contractor’s license. 7. An evidentiary hearing in this matter would not be appropriate under the doctrine of collateral estoppel because the facts that have already been determined in another forum are binding on the parties and those facts, when applied to A.R.S. § 32-1154(A), establish that Respondent committed no violation in the project that was the subject of both cases. RECOMMENDED DECISION Based on the foregoing considerations, the undersigned Administrative Law Judge finds that the complaint in this matter should be dismissed in its entirety with prejudice.

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 the date of certification.

Done this day, July 14, 2016.

/s/ Dorinda M. Lang Administrative Law Judge

Transmitted electronically to:

Jeffrey Fleetham, Director Registrar of Contractors -----------------------

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