ALJDEC decisions subject to certification as final

2015A-642-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2015-05-14

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

HEARING: April 30, 2015 APPEARANCES: Seth Hargraves, Attorney for the Registrar of Contractors; Jose Gill, Registrar of Contractors representative; Stacey Dedic, Matthew Kolling, and Kathy O’Brien, witnesses ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Dorinda M. Lang _____________________________________________________________________

FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Respondent holds License No. CR-5.233457-D under which it has been contracting to install artificial turf.[1] 2. In March, September, and November, 2014, three different clients who had contracted with Respondent filed complaints with the Registrar of Contractors. All three were found to be valid, but Respondent did not correct his violations. 3. On February 27, 2015, the Registrar of Contractors issued Respondent a Citation and Notice of Hearing. 4. Respondent failed to appear at his hearing. 5. The Registrar of Contractors offered into evidence testimony of the three clients who filed complaints against Respondent and the documentation of the investigation and its findings.[2] 6. The Registrar of Contractors alleged and offered evidence in support of the six counts alleged in the Citation and Notice of Hearing. By its absence, Respondent could offer no dispute of the facts or justification of its actions. 7. The Registrar of Contractors requested revocation of Respondent’s license and the imposition of a $500.00 civil penalty for Respondent’s violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22). 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),[3] (3), (12),[4] and (22). 3. A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(1) provides grounds for abandonment of a contract. The Registrar of Contractors established that Respondent did abandon at least two of the three clients who testified at the hearing. 4. A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) provides grounds for suspension or revocation of a contractor’s license for “[v]iolation of any rule adopted by the registrar”. The Arizona Administrative Code requires contractors to meet minimum workmanship standards in the projects they undertake. A.A.C. R4-9-108. The Registrar of Contractors’ evidence established that a Directive from the Registrar was issued on November 4, 2014.[5] It identified 5 items of correction, indicating that the work on those items did not meet minimum workmanship standards. No evidence was offered to dispute this finding. Therefore, the weight of the evidence established that these 5 items did not meet workmanship standards. 5. A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(12) provides grounds for suspension or revocation of a contractor’s license for failure to comply with A.R.S. § 32-1158(B), which concerns the required elements of a contract. Specifically, Respondent’s contracts were shown to lack the address of the jobsite, the estimated date of completion, and information on filing a complaint. Therefore, it was established that Respondent’s contracts violated A.R.S. § 32-1158(B)(2), (4), and (9), which is a violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(12). 6. A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22) provides grounds for suspension or revocation of a contractor’s license for failure to take appropriate corrective action on a Corrective Work Order without valid justification and within a reasonable period of time. The evidence and testimony at hearing established that Respondent failed to respond to that Directive.[6] 7. Pursuant to A.R.S. § 32-1154(E), the Registrar of Contractors may impose a civil penalty of no more than $500.00 for each violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22). In this case, the Registrar of Contractors established one such violation. RECOMMENDED DECISION Based upon the foregoing considerations, the undersigned Administrative Law Judge hereby recommends that Respondent’s Morningstar Turf LLC License No. CR-5.233457-D be revoked. It is further recommended that a civil penalty be imposed against Respondent in the amount of $500.00, payable in certified funds. If the Director of the Office of Administrative Hearings certifies this Administrative Law Judge Decision, the effective date of the order will be forty (40) days from the date of certification. Done this day, May 14, 2015.

/s/ Dorinda M. Lang Administrative Law Judge

Transmitted electronically to:

Jeffrey Fleetham, Director Registrar of Contractors ----------------------- [1] See Exhibit 1. [2] See Exhibits 2 through 8. [3] Two counts [4] Two counts [5] See Exhibit 5. [6] See Exhibit 6.

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

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