FINACT2016A-4454-CHC-ROC.pdf
2016A-4454-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2017-05-22
REGISTRAR OF CONTRACTORS OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA
City of Somerton, Case No. 2016-4454
COMPLAINANT, Docket No. CHC-2016A-4454-ROC
v.
Stephen Elliott Henry DBA: Arizona Blue Line Construction, License Nos. 242818, 242819, FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION AND ORDER RESPONDENT.
Under A.R.S. § 41-1092.08(B), the Registrar may review and accept, modify, or reject an
administrative law judge’s written decision. If the Registrar modifies or rejects that decision, then the
Registrar must provide written justification setting forth the reasons for the modification or rejection.
REJECTION
In this case, the administrative law judge issued a written decision. See Administrative Law Judge
Decision , attached. Judge Shedden granted Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss, vacated the hearing and
remanded this matter to the Registrar. The Registrar reviewed that decision and hereby rejects it.
JUSTIFICATION
When the Registrar receives a complaint against a contractor, the Registrar investigates that
complaint and, if the complaint possesses validity, issues a citation. Some of those citations bear the name of the Registrar as the complainant; some of those citations bear the name of the person filing the complaint, meaning that the person filing the complaint — and not the Registrar — will handle the case at hearing. Either way, the Registrar has jurisdiction over the matter and an administrative interest in it. If the Registrar permits the person filing the complaint to handle the case at the hearing, it's because the Registrar sees that person as having a legitimate interest in the case, too. The Registrar
1 of 4 REGISTRAR OF CONTRACTORS 1700 W. Washington St. Suite 105 – Phoenix, AZ 85007-2812 Telephone (602)542-1525 1-877-692-9762 decides to permit that interested party to handle the matter as a prudent exercise of its discretion: the Registrar cannot efficiently handle every valid complaint that can go to a disciplinary hearing, and this arrangement allows an interested party (the person filing the complaint) to proceed on a valid complaint. I. The City of Somerton has a real interest in the administrative proceedings. In the majority of cases, the interested party who handles the matter is either a property owner or a party to a construction contract. But the interested party doesn't need to be either one of those things as a matter of law. In this case, the Registrar received a complaint from the City of Somerton. The City complained
that a contractor failed to obtain a permit, thereby violating the city's codes. The Registrar investigated
the complaint, confirmed its validity, and issued the contractor a citation. The citation was in the City's
name, and the City was going to handle the matter at the hearing. But the City did not get to address the
matter substantively, because the Administrative Law Judge dismissed the matter and remanded it back
to the Registrar. The Registrar rejects the dismissal and orders that the matter be set for a substantive
hearing.
The City has a building code that the City is responsible for maintaining. The City has a real
interest in addressing any violation of that code by a contractor. Here, the Registrar confirmed the
validity of the City's complaint against the contractor for violating that code. Allowing the City to
proceed as the complainant at the hearing in this case makes as much sense as allowing a homeowner to proceed in a workmanship case or an unpaid subcontractor in a no-pay case. All the complainants have real interests in the administrative proceeding; all are situated to make the case that the license should be suspended or revoked (the issue raised by the citation, according to A.R.S. § 32-1155(A)) because of something that affects them. II. The statutes relied on by the Administrative Law Judge are inapposite. The statutes cited by the Administrative Law Judge do not bear on the propriety of allowing the City to proceed as the complainant instead of the Registrar. Section 32-1101(6) is a list of persons. Neither homeowners nor unpaid subcontractors are on it, so relying on it would gut the practice of allowing homeowners to proceed in workmanship cases and unpaid subcontractors in no-pay cases. And it doesn't control if "the context otherwise requires." A.R.S. § 32-1101(A). Section 32-1154(B) does not set requirements that control who may or may not proceed as a complainant in place of the Registrar, and it doesn't create a "standing" doctrine. Rather, Section 32- 1154(B) grants the Registrar the authority to investigate the acts of any contractor in Arizona and the authority to temporarily suspend or permanently revoke a contractor’s license. CONCLUSION AND ORDER
Because the Registrar confirmed the validity of the City's complaint, and because the City has an
interest in the outcome, the Registrar permitted the City to proceed as the complainant in the
administrative hearing.
The Registrar hereby REJECTS the Administrative Law Judge decision dismissing this matter
and orders that this matter be set for a hearing.
IT IS ORDERED that this matter be set for an administrative hearing with the Office of
Administrative Hearings.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Office of Administrative Hearings will assign this matter to
be heard by a different administrative law judge.
Dated this 17th day of May 2017.
Registrar of Contractors
/s/ Joseph Citelli ----------------------------------------------- Joseph Citelli Staff Attorney, Legal Department Copy mailed via USPS First Class mail this 17th day of May 2017 to: Respondent
3 of 4 REGISTRAR OF CONTRACTORS 1700 W. Washington St. Suite 105 – Phoenix, AZ 85007-2812 Telephone (602)542-1525 1-877-692-9762 Stephen Elliott Henry DBA: Arizona Blue Line Construction 15761 S Avenue 2 1/2 E Yuma, AZ 85365-9207 Michael W. Thal, Esq. LANG & KLAIN P.C. 8767 E Via De Commercio Ste 102 Scottsdale, AZ 85258-3374
Complainant City of Somerton c/o Salvador Lopez PO Box 683 Somerton, AZ 85350-0683
Jorge Lozano, Esq. THE LOZANO LAW FIRM PLLC 207 W 2nd St Yuma, AZ 85364-2209 And copy electronically mailed this same date to: Office of Administrative Hearings Thomas Shedden, Administrative Law Judge
Case No. 2016-4454/an