ALJDEC decisions subject to certification as final

2017A-1313-NPC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2017-07-05

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

ALC Designers LLC,

COMPLAINANT,

v.

Sky High Energy LLC ,

License No: 298739

RESPONDENT.

No. 2017A-1313-NPC-ROC

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION

HEARING: July 5, 2017, at 8:30 a.m.

APPEARANCES: Jerry Reyes for ALC Designers LLC (“Complainant”).

NON-APPEARANCE: Sky High Energy LLC (“Respondent”) failed to appear.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Linda Marie Brown

_____________________________________________________________________

FINDINGS OF FACT

Sky High Energy LLC (Respondent) was issued License No. CR11-298739 by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (Registrar). Respondent’s address of record is 22849 North 19th Avenue, Phoenix, Arizona 85027-1943.

According to the public website of the Registrar of Contractors (“the Registrar”), Respondent’s License No. CR11-298739 was Suspended Lack of Qualifying Party (06/13/2017); Suspended Non-Renewal (06/01/2017); and Suspended Lack of Qualifying Party (12/02-2016 – 11/26/2016).

Pursuant to A.A.C. R4-9-117, administrative notice is taken of the Registrar’s public website. On this date, Respondent’s license is currently suspended.

On or about March 8, 2017, Complainant filed its complaint with the Registrar alleging that Respondent owed a total of $9,985.00 for a total of 26 invoices dating from June 24, 2016 to present. Individual invoices listing each jobsite location and subcontract amount were provided as an attachment to Complainant’s Complaint.

Complainant stated in its Complaint that the scope of services were “Solar Designs for purposes of Permitting and Installation by Respondent on behalf of their customers. Said Designs to include site layouts, electrical layouts and calculations, as well as roof layouts and calculations, redline revisions require by authority having jurisdiction, as well as local utility company which each solar design was required to be submitted. Services did not include: electrical or structural P.E. stamps, calculations designs or reports however were offered at additional costs.” Terms to which services were to be provided were attached to the Complaint as Standard Terms and Conditions.

On April 21, 2017, the Registrar issued a Citation against Respondent’s contractor’s license, charging cause to suspend or revoke the license under A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(10). The Registrar mailed a copy of the Citation and Complaint to Respondent at its address of record.

Respondent filed a Written Answer to the Citation and Complaint on or about May 8, 2017, asserting it has made a sincere effort to negotiate the amount Complainant was charging, and that it made extensive complaints to Complainant for delays in the production of design drawings and that said delay resulted in clients canceling their contracts. Respondent also stated in its answer that it was “forced to start working with another designer company,” and Respondent had to “redo several of the Complainant’s design drawings.” Respondent further asserted that it “does not shy away from paying for reasonable services provided by ALC and used by Sky High.” Respondent requested “the opportunity to for an Informal Settlement Conference.”

The Registrar referred the matter to the Office of Administrative Hearings (“the OAH”), an independent agency, for an evidentiary hearing. On May 11, 2017, the Registrar issued a Notice of Hearing setting a hearing on July 5, 2017, at 8:30 a.m. in the OAH. The Registrar mailed a copy of the Notice of Hearing to Respondent at its address of record.

The Notice of Hearing informed the parties that “[f]ailure to attend the scheduled hearing is likely to result in an adverse ruling against you.”

A hearing was held on July 5, 2017, beginning at 8:45 a.m. Complainant testified to establish the amounts alleged to be owed in the Complaint that it filed with the Registrar in the amount of $9,985.00.

Complainant testified that an Informal Settlement Conference was held on May 25, 2017, and that both Complainant and Respondent were present.

Complainant testified when asked by the Tribunal regarding the alleged delay asserted in Respondent’s written answer that delays were the result of Respondent obtaining solar engineer stamps on electrical and structural plans, and that work ceased for Respondent upon its non-payment for services. Complainant stated that a Stop Notice was sent to Respondent.

Complainant testified that it believes Respondent received payment on all associated invoices as payment is made when installation is complete and that it has obtained Arial imaginary that the invoiced projects now have solar panels as per the engineering concepts it provided.

Respondent did not request to appear telephonically and did not request the July 5, 2017, hearing be continued. Although the start of the duly noticed hearing was delayed fifteen (15) minutes, Respondent did not appear through an authorized member, employee, or attorney, and did not contact the OAH to request the start of the hearing be further delayed. Consequently, Respondent did not present any evidence to establish its affirmative defenses asserted in its Answer to the Written Citation and Complaint.

The Hearing was adjourned at 9:15 a.m. to which Respondent made no appearance.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

This matter lies within the Registrar’s jurisdiction.

The Notice of Hearing that the Registrar mailed to Respondent at its address of record was reasonable and Respondent is deemed to have received notice of the hearing.

Complainant bears the burden of proof to establish statutory violations by a preponderance of the evidence.

Complainant established that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(10) by failing to pay Complainant more than $750.00 for services that Respondent used in its contracting business. Complainant also established that Respondent owes Complainant $9,985.00.

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Based on the foregoing, it is recommended that on the effective date of the final order in this matter, Respondent Sky High Energy License No. CR11.298739 shall be revoked.

It is further recommended that if on or before the effective date of the order, the Registrar receives satisfactory written proof from Respondent that it has paid $9,985.00 to Complainant by cashier’s or certified check, the Registrar should not revoke Respondent’s license but, instead, should close the complaint in Case No. 2017-1313.

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 5, 2017.

/s/ Linda Marie Brown

Administrative Law Judge

Transmitted electronically to:

Jeffrey Fleetham, Director

Registrar of Contractors