ALJDEC decisions subject to certification as final

2015A-540-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2015-07-07

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

HEARING: June 17, 2015, at 8:00 a.m. APPEARANCES: The Arizona Registrar of Contractors (“the Registrar”) was represented by Seth T. Hargraves, Esq., Assistant Attorney General; Respondent Global Turf AZ LLC failed to appear. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Diane Mihalsky _____________________________________________________________________

FINDINGS OF FACT Background and Procedure 1. On July 17, 2011, the Registrar issued License No. CR21.273888-D for residential landscaping to Respondent.[1] Respondent’s address of record is 1811 W. Stottler Dr., Chandler, Arizona 85224-2653. Respondent’s qualifying party is Phillip Brent Carver.[2] 2. Between January 14, 2014, and October 22, 2014, the Registrar received six complaints from homeowners with whom Respondent had contracted. 3. After the Registrar opened investigations into the homeowners’ complaints, on its own motion, the Registrar issued a Citation and Complaint against Respondent’s license based on three of the homeowners’ complaints, which it designated as Case No. 2014- 2594. Mr. Carver on behalf of Respondent filed a timely written answer to the Citation and Complaint in Case No. 2014-2594. 4. On March 4, 2015, the Registrar on its own motion issued a Complaint and Notice of Hearing on the other three homeowners’ complaints, which it designated as Case No. 2015-540. 5. The Registrar referred both matters to the Office of Administrative Hearings (“the OAH”), an independent state agency, for an evidentiary hearing. 6. The Complaint and Notice of Hearing in Case No. 2015-540 set a hearing at the OAH on April 27, 2015, at 8:00 a.m. The Registrar sent a copy of the Complaint and Notice of Hearing to Respondent via certified mail at its address of record. 7. On March 12, 2015, the Registrar issued a Notice of Hearing in Case No. 2014-2594, setting a hearing at the OAH on April 22, 2015, at 1:00 p.m. The Registrar sent a copy of the Notice of Hearing to Respondent via certified mail at its address of record. 8. On April 21, 2015, the Registrar’s attorney moved to consolidate Case Nos. 2014-2594 and 2015-540. On that same date, Mr. Carver on behalf of Respondent moved to continue the hearing in Case No. 2014-2594 at least 30 days. Mr. Carver did not provide a different address on Respondent’s motion to continue. 9. On April 22, 2015, the Administrative Law Judge issued an order consolidating Case Nos. 2014-2594 and 2015-540 for a continued hearing on June 17, 2015, at 8:00 a.m. Staff at the OAH mailed a copy of the April 22, 2015 order to Respondent at its address of record. 10. An evidentiary hearing was held on June 17, 2015. Respondent did not request to appear telephonically and did not request again that the hearing be continued. Although the hearing did not start until approximately 8:15 a.m. and did not conclude until approximately 10:03 a.m., Respondent did not appear, through an authorized member, employee, or attorney, and did not contact the OAH to request that the start of the hearing be further delayed. Consequently, Respondent did not present any evidence to defend its license. 11. The Registrar submitted 28 exhibits and presented the testimony of ten witnesses: (1) Denise Williams, a homeowner who had filed a complaint with the Registrar against Respondent, which was designated as Case No. 2014-693; (2) The Registrar’s Investigator Randy Cason, who performed investigations in Case Nos. 2014-693 and 2014-4327, which was based on a complaint that homeowner Karl A. Lorenz had filed with the Registrar against Respondent; (3) Lynda Fisher, a homeowner who had filed a complaint with the Registrar against Respondent, which was designated as Case No. 2014-838; (4) The Registrar’s Investigator Ted Gerold, who performed an investigation in Case No. 2014-838; (5) Susanta Saha, a homeowner who had filed a complaint with the Registrar against Respondent, which was designated as Case No. 2014-234; (6) The Registrar’s Investigator Beau Cruz, who performed an investigation in Case No. 2014-234; (7) Brian Brown, a homeowner who had filed a complaint with the Registrar against Respondent, which was designated as Case No. 2014-3341; (8) The Registrar’s Investigator Timothy Pennington, who performed an investigation in Case No. 2014-3341; (9) The Registrar’s Investigator Steve Lawton, who was involved in the investigation in Case No. 2014- 324, which was based on a complaint that homeowner Duane Michael Yantorno had filed with the Registrar against Respondent; and (10) Adam Stafford, the Registrar’s chief counsel. Hearing Evidence 12. Mr. Stafford testified that the Registrar administratively had suspended Respondent’s license on February 13, 2015, for lack of bond[3] and on June 17, 2015, because the corporation had been dissolved.[4] Case No. 2014-2594 Mr. Yantorno’s Complaint (Case No. 2014-324) 13. On or about January 24, 2014, Mr. Yantorno filed a complaint with the Registrar against Respondent alleging that on December 31, 2013, Respondent contracted to remove grass and to install a synthetic grass putting green at Mr. Yantorno’s home for a contract price of $2,050.00, but that after Mr. Yantorno had paid Respondent a down payment of $1,000.00, Respondent failed to show up as promised, refused to return the down payment, and failed to respond to Mr. Yantorno’s emails or phone messages.[5] Mr. Yantorno attached a copy of his cancelled check to his complaint and later provided an affidavit to support the complaint allegations.[6] 14. Mr. Yantorno attached to his complaint a copy of Respondent’s Estimate No. 62 dated December 26, 2013.[7] The estimate did not include Respondent’s license number preceded by the acronym “ROC.” 15. Mr. Yantorno’s complaint was initially assigned to the Registrar’s Investigator Phil Coscia for investigation. Inspector Coscia reviewed the documents that Mr. Yantorno provided, including the affidavit, and interviewed Mr. Yantorno telephonically. Investigator Coscia prepared a report of his investigation, in which he noted that his email to Respondent had been returned.[8] 16. Investigator Lawton testified that he followed up on Investigator Coscia’s investigation and went to Mr. Yantorno’s residence to take photographs. Investigator Coscia’s report noted that on August 19, 2014, he received an email from Investigator Lawton that he “[w]ent out to Mr. Yantorno’s residence this morning to inspect and get documentation on the completion of this project by another contractor. . . .”[9] Ms. Williams’ Complaint (Case No. 2014-693) 17. On or about February 21, 2014, Ms. Williams filed a complaint with the Registrar against Respondent alleging that on August 9, 2013, Respondent contracted to install 660 sq. ft. of artificial turf at Ms. Williams’ home for a contract price of $2,940.00 and that Ms. Williams had paid Respondent in full. Ms. Williams alleged that Respondent did not install the product that the contract required and that white stripes had appeared on the product within two weeks after Respondent installed it.[10] 18. Ms. Williams later provided to the Registrar copies of her cancelled checks to Respondent.[11] Ms. Williams attached to her complaint a copy of Respondent’s August 9, 2013 contract, which specified that it would install “La Jolla 54” synthetic turf.[12] The contract did not include an estimated date of completion, advise the homeowner of her right to file a complaint with the Registrar for a violation of A.R.S. § 32- 1154(A) within the time allowed by A.R.S. § 32-1155(A), or provide the Registrar’s telephone number or website address. 19. Investigator Cason testified that because he could not verify that Respondent had installed a different product than the contract specified, he instructed Ms. Williams to contact the manufacturer. Ms. Williams testified that she still had the sample that she had selected from the ones that Respondent provided and that she showed the sample to a representative of the manufacturer of La Jolla 54 synthetic turf, Everlast Artificial Turf. The Registrar submitted a letter to Ms. Williams dated June 23, 2014, from Bradley D. Neubauer on Everlast Artificial Turf letterhead stating that based on his site inspection, he had determined that because “[t]he product installed in your front yard is not LaJolla 54 by Everlast as clearly outlined on your contract” and that “is not any product in the Everlast Line or distributed by Synthetic Grass Warehouse,” he could not offer any warranty to cover the defects in the product.[13] Ms. Williams testified that others had told her that the product that Respondent installed was inferior turf manufactured in China. 20. Based on the additional information that Ms. Williams provided, on July 8, 2014, Investigator Cason on behalf of the Registrar issued a directive to Respondent to “[r]emove existing synthetic turf and install synthetic turf [] Ja Jolla 54 that is specified on the written contract” on or before July 25, 2014.[14] 21. Investigator Cason prepared a report of his investigation of Ms. Williams’ complaint.[15] Investigator Cason testified that on April 21, 2015, he performed a compliance jobsite inspection at Ms. Williams’ property and everything was the same as at the initial jobsite inspection. / / / / / / / / Ms. Fisher’s Complaint (Case No. 2014-838) 22. On or about March 5, 2014, Ms. Fisher filed a complaint with the Registrar against Respondent alleging that on January 29, 2014, Respondent contracted to install artificial turf at Ms. Fisher’s home for a contract price of $2,800.00. Ms. Fisher alleged that Respondent had left trash in the alleyway, after promising to remove it on February 11, 2014.[16] 23. Ms. Fisher testified that she did not have a written contract with Respondent and that its contract to install the artificial turf was oral. Ms. Fisher provided copies of her two checks to Respondent for the job, which it had cashed.[17] 24. Ms. Fisher also provided Respondent’s undated invoice for $1,400.00, which did not include Respondent’s license number preceded by the acronym “ROC.”[18] 25. On or about April 24, 2014, Ms. Fisher amended her complaint to add that grass and other plants were coming up through the artificial turf.[19] Ms. Fisher testified that Respondent had failed to fully remove bushes and grass before it installed the synthetic turf, and that these plants were coming through the turf that Respondent had installed. 26. Investigator Gerold testified that on April 28, 2014, he performed a jobsite inspection and verified that plants were growing through the artificial turf and the presence of construction debris in the alleyway. Inspector Gerold testified that it was not common for grass and other plants to grow through artificial turf and that such growth violated the Registrar’s workmanship standards. 27. On or about April 29, 2014, on behalf of the Registrar, Investigator Gerold issued a directive to Respondent to remedy the hedges and grass coming up through the turf and to remove all leftover construction and/or demolition debris from the alleyway on or before May 14, 2014.[20] 28. Ms. Fisher testified that Respondent has not contacted her or complied with the Registrar’s April 29, 2014 directive. Investigator Gerold prepared a report of his investigation that indicated that Respondent had not responded to any contacts, including attending the jobsite inspection or complying with the directive.[21] 29. On or about May 21, 2014, Ms. Fisher notified the Registrar that on April 30, 2014, she had received a Notice of Code Violation from the City of Tempe for the construction debris that Respondent had left in the alley and that she had paid another company $250.00 to remove the debris to resolve the violation. Ms. Fisher provided a copy of the Notice of Code Violation and her cancelled check to the other company.[22] Case No. 2015-540 Mr. Saha’s Complaint (Case No. 2014-234) 30. On or about January 17, 2014, Mr. Saha filed a complaint with the Registrar against Respondent alleging that on June 24, 2013, Respondent contracted to install synthetic turf at Mr. Saha’s home for a contract price of $3,800.00. Mr. Saha alleged that the synthetic turf was melting in a small area and that although Respondent had agreed to replace the area at no charge, Respondent did not respond to emails and had not replaced the turf.[23] 31. Mr. Saha attached Respondent’s undated invoice for $3,800.00 to his complaint. The invoice did not show Respondent’s license number preceded by the acronym “ROC.”[24] 32. Mr. Saha also attached his complaint his June 24, 2013 contract with Respondent. The contract did not contain an estimated date of completion, a description of the work to be performed, notice to the homeowner of his right to file a complaint with the Registrar for a violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A) within the time allowed by A.R.S. § 32-1155(A), or the Registrar’s telephone number or website address.[25] 33. Investigator Cruz testified that on March 26, 2014, he performed a jobsite inspection and verified that the synthetic turf was melting in three areas. Inspector Cruz testified that Respondent’s representative was present at the jobsite inspection. Inpector Cruz testified that the installation of the turf complied with the Registrar’s workmanship standards. 34. Inspector Cruz’s jobsite inspection notes stated that Respondent’s representative stated that Mr. Saha was emailed a copy of Respondent’s warranty, which stated in relevant part as follows: The customer is advised to use sunscreens over windows in close proximity to the synthetic grass. Some windows have coatings that reflect more heat than normal. This may melt the grass. Neither [Respondent] nor the manufacturer will be held responsible if this occurs.[26]

Investigator Cruz testified that he determined that the warranty was provided after the synthetic turf at Mr. Saha’s house had already been installed and melted. Inspector Cruz testified that because the warranty disclaimer was not issued before the job was performed, it was not effective and the melted turf violated the Registrar’s and industry workmanship standards. Inspector Cruz testified that after the jobsite inspection, Mr. Saha installed awnings on his windows. 35. On or about April 1, 2014, on behalf of the Registrar, Investigator Cruz issued a directive to Respondent to correct the melted areas of synthetic turf at Mr. Saha’s property on or before April 15, 2014.[27] 36. Mr. Saha testified that Respondent has not contacted him or complied with the Registrar’s April 1, 2014 directive. Investigator Cruz testified that he performed a compliance inspection at Mr. Saha’s property on August 11, 2014, and that at that time, nothing had been done to comply with the April 1, 2014 directive.[28] Mr. Brown’s Complaint (Case No. 2014-3341) 37. On or about August 19, 2014, Mr. Brown filed a complaint with the Registrar against Respondent alleging that on July 29, 2014, Respondent contracted to install landscaping, including synthetic turf, at Mr. Brown’s home for a contract price of $4,089.00. Mr. Brown stated that he paid Respondent $2,000.00 to begin the project. Mr. Brown alleged that although Respondent started the job on July 30, 2014, it never returned to the project to complete the job after that date and that Mr. Carver would not return Mr. Brown’s telephone calls.[29] 38. Mr. Brown attached to his complaint Mr. Carver’s July 28, 2014 email that provided a breakdown of prices for the various parts of job, which served as Respondent’s contract when Mr. Brown accepted Respondent’s terms.[30] The email did not contain Respondent’s name, address, license number, the jobsite address, an estimated date of completion, or a description of the work to be performed and did not advise the homeowner of his right to file a complaint with the Registrar for a violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A) within the time allowed by A.R.S. § 32-1155(A) or provide the Registrar’s telephone number or website address.[31] 39. Mr. Brown testified that the only work that Respondent performed was to install a little bit of granite, but that there was dirt and weeds where the synthetic turf was supposed to be installed and pavers adjacent to the gravel areas were sinking. 40. Investigator Pennington performed a jobsite inspection on September 18, 2014, and took photographs of the jobsite.[32] On September 23, 2014, Investigator Pennington issued a directive to Respondent, requiring it to complete the job on or before October 8, 2014.[33] 41. Mr. Brown testified that Respondent never contacted him or came out to complete the project. Investigator Pennington testified that Mr. Brown’s homeowners’ association required some items to be corrected or completed quickly. 42. Investigator Pennington prepared a report of his investigation. Respondent did not respond to Investigator Pennington’s emails or telephone calls. The United States Postal Service returned the September 23, 2014 directive as undelivered. When Investigator Pennington called Mr. Brown to schedule a Compliance Inspection, Mr. Brown stated that he would have to hire another contractor to complete the project.[34] Mr. Lorenz’s Complaint (Case No. 2014-4327) 43. On or about October 22, 2014, Mr. Lorenz filed a complaint with the Registrar against Respondent alleging that on December 24, 2013, Respondent contracted to install synthetic turf at Mr. Lorenz’s home for a contract price of $7,000.00. Mr. Lorenz stated that he paid Respondent the full contract price. Mr. Lorenz alleged numerous deficiencies in Respondent’s work, including that the surface of the turf was uneven, debris was left on the jobsite, the joint between the turf and patio slab was not flush, a prior tree removal caused a depression in the surface of the turf, the transition area between the putting green and the turf was poorly constructed, pavers that Respondent installed did not match existing pavers, and the pavers were poorly installed. Mr. Lorenz also stated that Respondent did not return his calls.[35] 44. Mr. Brown attached to his complaint a copy of his December 24, 2013 contract with Respondent.[36] The contract did not advise the homeowner of his right to file a complaint with the Registrar for a violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A) within the time allowed by A.R.S. § 32-1155(A) or provide the Registrar’s telephone number or website address.[37] 45. Investigator Cason performed a jobsite inspection on November 21, 2014. , Investigator Cason reported[38] and testified that Respondent’s workmanship with respect to the eight items mentioned above did not comply with the Registrar’s standards. 46. On December 23, 2014, Investigator Cason issued a directive to Respondent, requiring it to correct the eight items of workmanship noted above on or before January 13, 2015.[39] 47. Inspector Cason testified that Respondent did not comply with the December 23, 2014 directive. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The administratively suspended status of Respondent’s license does not deprive the Registrar of its ability to prosecute these complaints against Respondent or prevent the Registrar from determining the merits of those complaints.[40] These matters lie within the Registrar’s jurisdiction.[41] Respondent apparently received the Registrar’s Notice of Hearing in Case No. 2014-2594 at its address of record. The April 22, 2015 order consolidating Case Nos. 2014-2594 and 2015-540 at the Registrar’s attorney’s request and continuing the hearing at Respondent’s request that OAH staff mailed to Respondent at its address of record was reasonable, and Respondent is deemed to have received notice of the continued hearing.[42] The Registrar bears the burden of proof to establish cause to discipline Respondent’s license by a preponderance of the evidence.[43] “A preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.”[44] The Registrar established that Respondent abandoned Mr. Yantorno’s job and Mr. Brown’s job without legal excuse. Therefore, the Registrar established two incidents that furnish cause to discipline Respondent’s license under A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(1).[45] The Registrar established that Respondent did not install the La Jolla 54 synthetic turf that it contracted to install on Ms. Williams’ job and that the turf that it installed exhibited manufacturing defects that Everlast Artificial Turf, the manufacturer of La Jolla 54 synthetic turf, was not required to warranty. Therefore, the Registrar established one incident that furnishes cause to discipline Respondent’s license under A.R.S. § 32- 1154(A)(2).[46] The Registrar established that Respondent induced Ms. Williams to enter into a contract by showing her a sample of La Jolla 54 synthetic turf, but that it did not in fact install that product on her job, and that she was injured thereby. Therefore, the Registrar established one incident that furnishes cause to discipline Respondent’s license under A.R.S. § 32- 1154(A)(15).[47] The Registrar established that Respondent failed to comply with the Registrar’s and industry standards in the work that it performed on Ms. Fisher’s job, Mr. Saha’s job, and Mr. Lorenz’s job. Therefore, the Registrar established three incidents that furnish cause to discipline Respondent’s license under A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3),[48] namely A.A.C. R4-9- 108.[49] The Registrar established that Respondent disregarded the City of Tempe’s Solid Waste Section Codes by depositing and leaving construction debris in the alleyway behind Ms. Fisher’s residence. Therefore, the Registrar established one incident that furnishes cause to discipline Respondent’s license under A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(11).[50] The Registrar established that Respondent failed to include its license number preceded by the acronym “ROC” on the December 26, 2013 bid that it gave to Mr. Yantorno, the undated invoice that it gave to Ms. Fisher for $1,400.00, and the undated invoice that it gave to Mr. Saha for $3,800.00. Therefore, the Registrar established three incidents that furnish cause to discipline Respondent’s license under A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(12),[51] namely A.R.S. § 32-1124(B).[52] The Registrar established that Respondent failed to memorialize its oral contract with Ms. Fisher in a written contract and failed to include all of the terms that A.R.S. § 32-1158(B) requires[53] in its contacts with Ms. Fisher, Mr. Saha, Mr. Brown, and Mr. Lorenz. Therefore, the Registrar established four additional incidents that furnish cause to discipline Respondent’s license under A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(12). The Registrar established that Respondent failed to comply with the written directives that the Registrar issued for Ms. Williams’ job, Ms. Fisher’s job, Mr. Brown’s job, and Mr. Lorenz’s job. Therefore, the Registrar established four incidents that furnish cause to discipline Respondent’s license under A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22).[54] With respect to the appropriate penalty, Respondent’s failures to respond to the six homeowners’ complaints or to attend the hearing indicate that at this time, it cannot be regulated. RECOMMENDED ORDER Based on the foregoing, it is recommended that on the effective date of the final Order in this matter, Respondent Global Turf AZ, LLC’s License No. CR21.273888-D shall be revoked. It is further recommended that Respondent shall be required to pay the sum of $2,000.00 as civil penalties for its four failures to comply with the Registrar’s written directives issued under A.R.S. § 32- 1154(A)(22) pursuant to A.R.S. § 32-1154(E).[55] It is further recommended that if Respondent fails to pay the entire amount of the civil penalties on or before thirty days following the effective date of the final order in this matter, the Registrar shall revoke Respondent’s license, effective on such deadline date. No future license shall be issued to any entity consisting of persons associated with Respondent, as defined in A.R.S. § 32-1101(A)(5), unless Respondent tenders payment of any outstanding prior civil penalties. 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 five days from the date of that certification. Done this day, July 7, 2015.

/s/ Diane Mihalsky Administrative Law Judge

Transmitted electronically to:

Jeffrey Fleetham, Director Registrar of Contractors ----------------------- [1] See the Registrar’s Exhibit 1 at 4. [2] See id. at 7. [3] See the Registrar’s Exhibit 1 at 7; Exhibit 27. [4] See the Registrar’s Exhibit 28. [5] See the Registrar’s Exhibit 2 at 1-2. [6] See id. at 6 and the Registrar’s Exhibit 3. [7] See the Registrar’s Exhibit 2 at 5. [8] See the Registrar’s Exhibit 4. [9] See id. at 3. [10] See the Registrar’s Exhibit 5 at 1-2. [11] See the Registrar’s Exhibit 6. [12] The Registrar’s Exhibit 5 at 5. [13] The Registrar’s Exhibit 6 at 5. [14] The Registrar’s Exhibit 7 at 1. [15] See the Registrar’s Exhibit 8. [16] See the Registrar’s Exhibit 9 at 1-2. [17] See the Registrar’s Exhibit 10 at 2-3. [18] See id. at 1. [19] See id. at 4 [20] See the Registrar’s Exhibit 11. [21] See the Registrar’s Exhibit 13. [22] See the Registrar’s Exhibit 12. [23] See the Registrar’s Exhibit 21 at 1-2. [24] See id. at 4. [25] See id. at 5. [26] The Registrar’s Exhibit 16 at 2. [27] See the Registrar’s Exhibit 17. [28] See the Registrar’s Exhibit 19 at 5 (Investigator Cruz’s Departmental Report). [29] See the Registrar’s Exhibit 20 at 1-2. [30] See id. at 3. [31] See id. at 5. [32] See the Registrar’s Exhibit 21. [33] See the Registrar’s Exhibit 22. [34] See the Registrar’s Exhibit 23. [35] See the Registrar’s Exhibit 24 at 1-2. [36] See id. at 3-4. [37] See id. at 5. [38] See the Registrar’s Exhibit 25. [39] See the Registrar’s Exhibit 26. [40] See A.R.S. § 32-1154(C). That statute provides that “[t]he expiration, cancellation, suspension or revocation of a license . . . shall not deprive the registrar of jurisdiction to proceed with any investigation of or action or disciplinary proceeding against such license, or to render a decision suspending or revoking such a license . . . .” [41] See A.R.S. § 32-1154(A). [42] See A.R.S. §§ 41-1092.04; 41-1092.05(D). [43] See A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2); A.A.C. R2-19-119(A) and (B)(1); see also Vazanno v. Superior Court, 74 Ariz. 369, 372, 249 P.2d 837 (1952). [44] Morris K. Udall, Arizona Law of Evidence § 5 (1960). [45] A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(1) includes among the grounds for suspension, revocation, or other disciplinary action against a contractor’s license, “[a]bandonment of a contract or refusal to perform after submitting a bid on work without legal excuse for the abandonment or refusal.” [46] A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(2) includes among the grounds for suspension, revocation, or other disciplinary action against a contractor’s license, “[d]eparture from or disregard of plans or specifications or any building codes of any state or any political subdivision of the state in any material respect which is prejudicial to another without consent of the owner or the owner’s duly authorized representative and without the consent of the person entitled to have the particular construction project or operation completed in accordance with such plans and specifications and code.” [47] A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(15) includes among the grounds for suspension, revocation, and other disciplinary action against a contractor’s license, “[f]alse, misleading or deceptive advertising whereby any member of the public may be misled and injured.” [48] A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) includes among the grounds for suspension, revocation, or other disciplinary action against a contractor’s license, “[v]iolation of any rule adopted by the registrar.” [49] A.A.C. R4-9-108 requires that “[a]ll work shall be performed in a professional and workmanlike manner” and that “[a]ll work shall be performed in accordance with any applicable building codes and professional industry standards.” [50] A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(11) includes among the grounds for suspension, revocation, or other disciplinary action against a contractor’s license, “[f]ailure of a contractor to comply with any safety or labor laws or codes of the federal government, state or political subdivisions of the state.” [51] A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(12) includes among the grounds for suspension, revocation, or other disciplinary action against a contractor’s license, “[f]ailure in any material respect to comply with this chapter.” [52] A.R.S. § 32-1124(B) requires that licensed contractors include their license number “preceded by the acronym ‘ROC’“ on “all written bids submitted by the licensee and . . . on all advertising, loan forms, lending institution forms, letterheads and other documents used by the licensee in the conduct of business regulated by this chapter.” [53] A.R.S. § 32-1158(B) provides that any contract in an amount of more than one thousand dollars entered into between a contractor and the owner of a property to be improved after December 31, 2007 must be in writing and must include the following minimum terms: 1. The name of the contractor and the contractor’s business address and the license number. 2. The name and mailing address of the owner and the jobsite address or legal description. 3. The date the parties entered into the contract. 4. The estimated date of completion of all work to be performed under the contract. 5. A description of the work to be performed under the contract. 6. The total dollar amount to be paid to the contractor by the owner for all work to be performed under the contract, including all applicable taxes. 7. The dollar amount of any advance deposit paid or scheduled to be paid to the contractor by the owner. 8. The dollar amount of any progress payment and the stage of construction at which the contractor will be entitled to collect progress payments during the course of construction under the contract. 9. That the property owner has the right to file a written complaint with the registrar for an alleged violation of section 32-1154, subsection A. The contract shall contain the registrar’s telephone number and website address and shall state that complaints must be made within the applicable time period as set forth in section 32-1155, subsection A. The information in this paragraph must be prominently displayed in the contract in ten point bold type. . . . [54] A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22) includes among the grounds for suspension, revocation, or other disciplinary action against a contractor’s license, “[f]ailure 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.” [55] A.R.S. § 32-1154(E) provides in relevant part as follows: The registrar may impose a civil penalty of not to exceed five hundred dollars on a contractor for each violation of subsection A, paragraph 22 of this section. . . . The failure by the licensee to pay any civil penalty imposed under this subsection results in the automatic revocation of the license thirty days after the effective date of the order providing for the civil penalty. No future license may be issued to an entity consisting of a person, as defined in section 32-1101, subsection A, paragraph 6, who is associated with the contractor, unless payment of any outstanding civil penalty is tendered.

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

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