FINACT2018A-129-CHC-ROC.pdf

2018A-129-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2019-01-03

REGISTRAR OF CONTRACTORS OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA

Dafnah Nissanov-Zular, Case No. 2018-129 COMPLAINANT, Docket No. 2018A-129-CHC-ROC v. FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION Pro Cuts Construction, LLC, AND ORDER License No. ROC 300240, 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.

REGISTRAR’S ACCEPTANCE

In this case, a hearing was held, and the administrative law judge issued a written decision. See

Administrative Law Judge Decision, attached. The Registrar reviewed that decision and hereby accepts

it.

CONCLUSION

Because the Registrar has accepted the administrative law judge’s decision, that decision is the

final administrative decision in this case and becomes effective on January 28, 2019.

FINAL NOTE

On page 13, line 23 the Registrar replaces “closed” with “dismissed.”

Dated December 19, 2018. Registrar of Contractors /s/ Joseph Citelli Joseph Citelli Chief Counsel Chief of Legal Department and Recovery Fund

of 2 REGISTRAR OF CONTRACTORS 1700 W. Washington St. Suite 105 – Phoenix, AZ 85007-2812 Telephone (602)542-1525 1-877-692-9762

Copy mailed via USPS First Class mail December 19, 2018 to: Respondent Pro Cuts Construction LLC 14612 W Spur Dr Surprise, AZ 85387 Complainant Dafnah Nissanov-Zular 17215 N 34th Way Phoenix, AZ 85032 AND copy electronically mailed this same date to: Respondent at email address on record with the Registrar Office of Administrative Hearings Jenna Clark, Administrative Law Judge

Case No. 2018-129 / AN

of 2 REGISTRAR OF CONTRACTORS 1700 W. Washington St. Suite 105 – Phoenix, AZ 85007-2812 Telephone (602)542-1525 1-877-692-9762 RECEIVED 11.28.2018 ROC LEGAL

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

Dafnah Nissanov-Zular, No. 2018A-129-CHC-ROC COMPLAINANT, ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE v. DECISION Pro Cuts Construction LLC License No. 300240, RESPONDENT.

HEARING: November 09, 2018 at 10:00 AM. APPEARANCES: Dafnah Nissanov-Zular (“Complainant”) appeared on her own behalf. Steve Klein appeared on behalf of the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (“Registrar”). Brian Rogers appeared on behalf of Pro Cuts Construction LLC (“Respondent”). ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Jenna Clark. _____________________________________________________________________ After review of the hearing record in this matter, the undersigned Administrative Law Judge makes the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, and issues this Order to the Director of the Registrar. FINDINGS OF FACT BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURE 1. Administrative Notice is taken that on or about July 17, 2015, according to the Registrar’s public website, the Registrar issued License No. 300240 General Dual KB-2 Residential and Small Commercial contracting license to Respondent.1 The license is currently active and renewed through July 31, 2019.2 Brian James Rogers is the Qualifying Party/Member on this license.3 Respondent’s address of record on the

license is 14612 W Spur Drive, Surprise, Arizona 85387-6359.4

See https://roc.az.gov/contractor-search?Id=a0Yt000000ACMxOEAX. Id. 3 Id. Id. Office of Administrative Hearings 1740 West Adams Street, Lower Level Phoenix, Arizona 85007 (602) 542-9826 RECEIVED 11.28.2018 ROC LEGAL

2. Complainant owns property located at 17215 N 34th Way, Phoenix, Arizona 85032. 3. On or about October 18, 2016, Complainant and Respondent entered into a $65,000.00 home renovation contract, with a completion date of January 13, 2017.5 The contract was later modified twice for add-ons and the final price was ultimately increased to $66,058.00.6 The contract included installation of tile flooring, windows, kitchen cabinetry, a kitchen door, hallway closet door, and updates to the guest and master bathrooms.7 4. On December 26, 2017, Complainant filed a complaint with the Registrar alleging that Respondent had abandoned work on Complainant’s project, located at 17215 N 34th Way, Phoenix, Arizona 85032.8 According to the complaint, Respondent’s crew vacated the projected per his order mid-March of 2017, and never returned.9 At that time parts of the project were either incomplete or needed correction.10 The

complaint also alleged that Respondent left Complainant’s property in a hazardous and

unsafe condition.11

5. The Registrar received Complaint No. 2018-129 on January 09, 2018,

and it was assigned to Steve Klein (“Investigator Klein”) for investigation. 6. On January 11, 2018, Investigator Klein mailed a job inspection letter to the parties, notifying them that a jobsite inspection was to take place at Complainant’s property on February 07, 2018, at 10:00 a.m.12 7. The initial inspection was conducted on February 07, 2018.13 Complainant and Respondent were both present.14 Investigator Klein substantiated two of Complainant’s forty complaint items.15 See Respondent Exhibit A. 6 Id. See Respondent Exhibits B and C. 8 See the Registrar’s electronic file at Intake Complaint Submittal1.pdf. Id. Id. Id. See the Registrar’s electronic file at Rcc012 Formal Inspection Jobsite1.rtf . 13 See the Registrar’s electronic file at Rcc100 Jobsite Inspection Notes1.rtf. RECEIVED 11.28.2018 ROC LEGAL

8. On February 09, 2018, Investigator Klein issued a DIRECTIVE FROM THE REGISTRAR16, substantiating that Respondent’s work failed to meet minimum workmanship standards pursuant to ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R4-9-108 for the following complaint items: Complaint Item 7: Key to the kitchen door was never returned, which will require replacement of the lock.

Complaint Item 8: Because the contractor reneged on flooring the guest unit, a lot of flooring-tile that had been bought, remained unused, despite extreme careless waste by the tilers. The contractor promised to return it and get refund-but never did. [….] Tile is unfinished in kitchen and dining room.

The deadline for Respondent to comply with the DIRECTIVE was on or before 5:00 p.m. on February 28, 2018.17 Respondent was further placed on notice that failure to comply with the DIRECTIVE constituted a violation of ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-1154(A)(22) and could result in the issuance of a Citation, discipline of Respondent’s license, and/or the levy of a civil penalty pursuant to ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-1154(E) of up to $500.00.18 9. On February 21, 2018, the Registrar received an addendum to Complaint No. 2018-129 from Complainant.19

10. On February 23, 2018, the Registrar received another addendum to

Complaint No. 2018-129 from Complainant.20

11. On March 01, 2018, Investigator Klein mailed a job inspection letter to the

parties, notifying them that a jobsite inspection was to take place at Complainant’s property on March 30, 2018, at 10:00 a.m.21

Id. 15 Id. See the Registrar’s electronic file at Rcc014 Corrective Work Order3.rtf. 17 Id. Id. See the Registrar’s electronic file at Intake Additional Docs Submitted 5.pdf. See the Registrar’s electronic file at Intake Additional Docs Submitted 3.pdf; See also Registrar’s electronic file at Intake Additional Docs Submitted 4.pdf. 21 See the Registrar’s electronic file at Rcc090 Addendum To Formal Complaint1.rtf . RECEIVED 11.28.2018 ROC LEGAL

12. On March 05, 2018, the Registrar received a third addendum to Complaint No. 2018-129 from Complainant.22 13. On March 28, 2018, Investigator Klein mailed the parties to notify them that their previously scheduled jobsite inspection was rescheduled for April 27, 2018, at 10:00 a.m.23 14. The second jobsite inspection was conducted on April 27, 2018.24 Complainant and Respondent were both present.25 Investigator Klein took twenty-three photographs of the project.26 Investigator Klein substantiated eleven additional complaint items.27 15. On April 27, 2018, Investigator Klein issued a second DIRECTIVE28, substantiating that Respondent’s work failed to meet minimum workmanship standards pursuant to ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R4-9-108 for the following complaint items: Complaint Item 7: Key to the kitchen door was never returned, which will require replacement of the lock. Complaint Item 9: Because the contractor reneged on flooring the guest unit, a lot of flooring-tile that had been bought, remained unused, despite extreme careless waste by the tilers. The contractor promised to return it and get refund-but never did. [….] Tile is unfinished in kitchen and dining room. Complaint Item 10: Tile not level Verified floor tile not level in a couple of areas. Concrete floor is existing, and the Respondent states he used the max thickness allowed by the Floor leveler compound manufacturer, which is ½ “. Floors should be level within ¼” in any 12”run. When an inadequate or defective substrate is present prior to installation of tile, the general contractor and /or the owner should be notified in writing by the tile contractor that a specific surface area is unacceptable for installation. See the Registrar’s electronic file at Intake Additional Docs Submitted 2.pdf. See the Registrar’s electronic file at Rcc063 Re Schedule Of Jobsite Inspection1.rtf . See the Registrar’s electronic file at Rcc100 Jobsite Inspection Notes1.rtf. Id. See the Registrar’s electronic file at Insp Complaint Submittal1.docx. Id. 28 See the Registrar’s electronic file at Rcc014 Corrective Work Order2.rtf. RECEIVED 11.28.2018 ROC LEGAL

Complaint Item 11: Sloping causing water to pool Verified floor tile not level in a couple of areas. Concrete floor is existing, and the Respondent states he used the max thickness allowed by the Floor leveler compound manufacturer, which is ½ “. Floors should be level within ¼” in any 12”run. When an inadequate or defective substrate is present prior to installation of tile, the general contractor and /or the owner should be notified in writing by the tile contractor that a specific surface area is unacceptable for installation.

Complaint Item 12: Grout issues Respondent agreed to grout touchups on floor, bath sink and shower surround.

Complaint Item 14: Windows not installed correctly Verified window adjustments needed.

Complaint Item 15: Sills unprofessionally done Verified drywall sill above kitchen sink should be leveled.

Complaint Item 16: Receptacles installed incorrectly Kitchen receptacles and plate should fit flush.

Complaint Item 18: Kitchen door improperly installed. Verified door adjustment is needed.

Complaint Item 20: Toe kick in kitchen not attached Verified toe kick needs to be secured.

Complaint Item 23: Shower ledge installed incorrectly Shower ledge needs to be caulked. Complaint Item 26: Bath door not installed correctly and not painted well. Door needs to be adjusted.

Complaint Item 28: Air vents not sealed Drywall ceiling in bed needs to be painted.

Complaint Item 31: Hall bath cabinet installed incorrectly. Vanity top needs to be caulked at corners.

Complaint Item 36: Tiles around closet not done correctly RECEIVED 11.28.2018 ROC LEGAL

Respondent agreed to paint top to match others, also make sure base tops are consistent, some areas are rough compared to others.

Complaint Item 39: Back porch ceiling has stucco stains Respondent agreed to paint ceiling.

The deadline for Respondent to comply with the DIRECTIVE was on or before 5:00 p.m. on May 17, 2018.29 Respondent was further placed on notice that failure to comply with the DIRECTIVE constituted a violation of ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-1154(A)(22) and could result in the issuance of a Citation, discipline of Respondent’s license, and/or the levy of a civil penalty pursuant to ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-1154(E) of up to $500.00.30 16. On May 25, 2018, the Registrar received a copy of the parties’ contract agreement from Complainant.31 17. On May 30, 2018, Investigator Klein issued a third and final AMENDED DIRECTIVE32, substantiating that Respondent’s work failed to meet minimum workmanship standards pursuant to ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R4-9-108 for Complaint Items 9 by including the following addition: Complaint Item 9: Because the contractor reneged on flooring the guest unit, a lot of flooring-tile that had been bought, remained unused, despite extreme careless waste by the tilers. The contractor promised to return it and get refund-but never did. [….] Tile is unfinished in kitchen and dining room. Contract states demo all flooring and install new tile throughout. (Emphasis added.)

The deadline for Respondent to comply with the DIRECTIVE was on or before 5:00 p.m.

on June 18, 2018.33 Respondent was further placed on notice that failure to comply with

the DIRECTIVE constituted a violation of ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-1154(A)(22) and could result in the issuance of a Citation, discipline of Respondent’s license, and/or the levy of a civil penalty pursuant to ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-1154(E) of up to $500.00.34

Id. Id. See the Registrar’s electronic file at Intake Additional Docs Submitted 1.pdf. See the Registrar’s electronic file at Rcc014 Corrective Work Order1.rtf. Id. 34 Id. RECEIVED 11.28.2018 ROC LEGAL

18. On July 05, 2018, Investigator Klein mailed a compliance inspection letter to the parties, notifying them that a compliance inspection was to take place at Complainant’s property on July 18, 2018, at 4:00 p.m.35 19. The compliance inspection was conducted on July 18, 2018. Complainant and Respondent were both present. Investigator Klein reviewed the thirteen complaint items he had previously identified for correction, and determined that eight of them had still not been corrected to his satisfaction.36 20. On July 20, 2018, the Registrar issued a formal CITATION to Respondent that charged cause to suspend or revoke Respondent’s license under ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R4-9-108 and ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-1154(A)(3) and 32-1154(A)(22).37 The CITATION reads, in pertinent parts, as follows: The Registrar hereby notifies Pro Cuts Construction LLC that if the act or acts charged in the written complaint are proved at an administrative hearing, then S Pro Cuts Construction LLC may be found to have violated the following statutory provisions and rules: Charge 1: A violation of Rule 4-9-108, titled “Minimum Construction Standards,” in the Arizona Administrative Code, and thereby of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3). Charge 2: A violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22) (“Failure 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. The written directive shall set forth the time within which the contractor is to complete the remedial action. The time permitted for compliance shall not be less than fifteen days from the date of issuance of the directive.”).

The CITATION further warned that Respondent’s failure to timely submit his ANSWER by April 13, 2018, would be deemed an admission to charges under ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32- 1155(B), and could result in the suspension or revocation of his license.

35 See the Registrar’s electronic file at Rcc012 Formal Inspection Jobsite1.rtf . See the Registrar’s electronic file at Rcc104 Compliance Jobsite Inspection Notes1.rtf. 37 See the Registrar’s electronic file at Rch424 Citation Multiple Charges Workmanship W221.rtf. RECEIVED 11.28.2018 ROC LEGAL

21. On August 05, 2018, Respondent timely submitted his ANSWER to the Registrar.38 22. In his ANSWER Respondent asserted that in February of 2016 Complainant asked him to leave the project site, and that she had denied him access to the site thereafter. Per Respondent, he tried to negotiate with Complainant for weeks via multiple means but was never able to reach her, until she presented him with a CONTRACT TERMINATION AGREEMENT (“CTA”) in March of 2016. Although Respondent agreed to Complainant’s termination terms, he was not able to coordinate with Complainant to return the signed CTA to her.39 Respondent drafted a separate CTA, which he had notarized, but was unable to deliver it to Complainant.40 23. After reviewing Respondent’s ANSWER the Registrar referred the complaint to the Office of Administrative Hearings, an independent state agency, for an evidentiary hearing. HEARING EVIDENCE 24. An evidentiary hearing was held at the Office of Administrative Hearings on November 09, 2018 at 10:00 a.m. Complainant appeared on her own behalf, called Investigator Klein as a witness, and submitted two exhibits. Brian Rogers testified on behalf of Respondent and submitted five exhibits. The Registrar’s electronic file and NOTICE OF HEARING were also admitted into the evidentiary record. Brian Rogers’ testimony

25. Mr. Rogers testified that there were several change orders to his project

contract with Complainant. Mr. Rogers testified that as a result of the change orders, the project completion date was “pushed back” each time. A completion date was not identified. 26. Mr. Rogers testified that the first few weeks of Complainant’s project were uneventful, but that afterward Complainant systematically reduced his access until he

See the Registrar’s electronic file at Lg Citation1.pdf. 40

RECEIVED 11.28.2018 ROC LEGAL

and his crew were no longer permitted to enter the project site. Mr. Rogers testified that Complainant had expressed displeasure over several aspects of the project, but that Complainant did not afford Respondent an opportunity to make corrections because she would not allow access to the project site. 27. Per Mr. Rogers, after weeks of trying to reach Complainant to no avail, Complainant presented Respondent with a CTA whereby she would release him from the contract if he agreed to cover the costs of another contractor’s remediation work. Although Respondent agreed, he was never able to reach Complainant to return the CTA. 28. Mr. Rogers testified that the next time he heard from Complainant it was via the Registrar. 29. Mr. Rogers testified that he would inform Investigator Klein of almost every instance where he attempted to gain access to finish the project but was ignored

or rebuffed by Complainant. To substantiate his contentions, Mr. Rogers provided

Investigator Klein with text message screenshots of exchanges he had with

Complainant.41 Mr. Rogers also testified that Investigator Klein for advice about his

communication issues with Complainant, but did not receive any helpful tips beyond what Respondent was already doing. 30. Per Mr. Rogers, Complainant did not want any of his trades working on the project when she was not present, but her schedule was very inflexible and did not allow much work to be completed. Mr. Rogers testified that to accommodate Complainant he agreed to work outside of his normal business hours, including on Sundays. 31. Mr. Rogers testified that although the DIRECTIVE afforded him three weeks to make corrections to the Complaint Items Investigator Klein substantiated, Complainant only gave him four days. In the days leading to the DIRECTIVE deadline Respondent was able to remediate most of the Complaint Items, save the tile

41 See the Registrar’s electronic file at Insp Correspondence From Resondent1.pdf. RECEIVED 11.28.2018 ROC LEGAL

installation. Per Mr. Rogers, on the fourth day afforded by Complainant he laid “quickset self-leveler” to existing concrete slab, which needed one hour to dry before the tile could be laid. Complainant disagreed regarding the time the quickset needed to dry, and refused to let Respondent lay the tile. Mr. Rogers testified that Complainant asked him to leave the project site. 32. Mr. Rogers testified that his first time back on the project site was during Investigator Klein’s compliance inspection on July 19, 2018, whereby Complainant told him that she did not want him to finish the project. 33. Mr. Rogers testified that if he had been permitted to access the project site he would have been able to timely complete the remediation work outlined in the Registrar’s final DIRECTIVE. Investigator Klein’s testimony 34. Investigator Klein confirmed that he was employed as an investigator with

the Registrar, and that he had been assigned to Complaint No. 2018-129.

35. Investigator Klein testified that he called Complainant on September 25,

2018, and November 06, 2018, to see if any corrective work had been completed on

the project, but that Complainant informed him none had. 36. Investigator Klein agreed that Complaint Items 7, 9-12, 14-16, 18, 20, 23, 26, 31, 36 and 39 needed to be remediated by Respondent on or before June 18, 2018, per the DIRECTIVE. Investigator Klein testified further, however, that Respondent telephoned him several times to complain about Complainant repeatedly denying Respondent access to complete the aforementioned corrections. Investigator Klein testified that he instructed Respondent to copy him on email correspondence Respondent sent to Complainant, but that Complainant did not have email so that was not a possibility. As an alternative, Investigator Klein suggested Respondent send a certified letter to Complainant requesting access, but he was unsure whether Respondent took his advice. Investigator Klein testified that he did not question Complainant regarding Respondent’s allegations prior to the expiration of the DIRECTIVE RECEIVED 11.28.2018 ROC LEGAL

deadline, in part, because he witnessed Complainant tell Respondent that she did not want him back on the project. Complainant’s testimony 37. Complainant testified that early on in the project she began to have concerns with Respondent’s billing and work product. She wanted to have more oversight, so she limited Respondent’s access to the project to coincide with her time off of work. 38. Complainant agreed that she gave Respondent four days to complete remediation work, as outlined in the Registrar’s Directive. In that timeframe Respondent was able to correct and/or complete Complaint Items 7, 12, 15, 20, 26, 28, 36, and 39. 39. Complainant also agreed that she did not permit Respondent to lay tile he had prepared on the final day of the remediation period. 40. Complainant did not secure a remediation estimate from another

contractor. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The Registrar has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-1101 et seq. and 32-1154(A). The matter was properly brought before the Office of Administrative Hearings pursuant to ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 41-1092 et seq. 2. The Registrar may resolve contractual disputes if such resolution in ancillary to its regulatory mission and may penalize a contractor’s license by ordering payment of restitution if a proven statutory violation was not remedied by corrective action.42 3. The purpose of the Registrar’s licensing statutes is to protect the public from unscrupulous, unqualified, and financially irresponsible contractors.43 4. Complainant bears the burden of proof to establish Respondent’s statutory violations by a preponderance of the evidence.44 Respondent bears the

See ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-1156.01; Sunpower of Arizona v. Arizona Registrar of Contractors, 166 Ariz. 437, 441, 803 P.2d 430, 434 (App. 1990). 43 See Aesthetic Property Maintenance v. Capital Indem. Corp., 183 Ariz. 74, 900 P. 2d 1210 (1995). RECEIVED 11.28.2018 ROC LEGAL

burden to establish factors in mitigation of the penalty and affirmative defenses by the same evidentiary standard.45 1. “A preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of

fact that the contention is more probably true than not.”46 Respondent bears the burden

to establish factors in mitigation of the penalty and affirmative defenses by the same

evidentiary standard.47

2. Statutes should be interpreted to provide a fair and sensible result.48

Statutes shall be liberally construed to affect their objects and to promote justice.49

3. ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE 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.”

4. ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 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.” 5. ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 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.” 6. Complainant has not sustained her burden of proof in this matter.

See ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092.07(G)(2); ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119(A); see also Vazanno v. Superior Court, 74 Ariz. 369, 372, 249 P.2d 837 (1952). 45 See ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119(B)(2). MORRIS K. UDALL, ARIZONA LAW OF EVIDENCE § 5 (1960). See also BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY 1373 (10th ed. 2014) which states that preponderance of the evidence is “[t]he greater weight of the evidence, not necessarily established by the greater number of witnesses testifying to a fact but by evidence that has the most convincing force; superior evidentiary weight that, though not sufficient to free the mind wholly from all reasonable doubt, is still sufficient to incline a fair and impartial mind to one side of the issue rather than the other.” See ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119(B)(2). See Gutierrez v. Industrial Commission of Arizona, 226 Ariz. 395, 249 P.3d 1095 (2011)(citation omitted); State v. McFall, 103 Ariz. 234, 238, 439 P.2d 805, 809 (1968) (“Courts will not place an absurd and unreasonable construction on statutes.”). 49 See ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 1-211(B). RECEIVED 11.28.2018 ROC LEGAL

7. The record establishes the contractual agreement the parties entered into for Complainant’s home renovation project, and that much Respondent’s work fell-short of Complainant’s expectations. However, because construction is not a perfect art,

contractors generally must be afforded at least one opportunity to correct their deficient

work before their licenses may be suspended or revoked. Respondent established by

a preponderance of the evidence that Complainant refused to provide reasonable

access to allow Respondent to attempt to comply with the final DIRECTIVE issued in this

matter.

8. If Complainant had allowed reasonable access, and subsequently

requested that Investigator Klein perform a compliance inspection, Investigator Klein

could have soundly determined that some or all of Respondent’s repairs did not comply

with the Registrar’s workmanship standards. However, on this record, such a

conclusion would be in error as the uncontroverted evidence establishes that

Respondent was not afforded the period of time determined by the Registrar to

remediate his work on Complainant’s project.

9. Because no cause has been established for the Registrar to discipline

Respondent’s contractor’s license under ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-1154(A)(1), 32-32- 1154(A)(3), 32-1154(A)(12), 32-1154(A)(22), 32-1158(A), or ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R4-9- 108, it is appropriate to close Complaint No. 218-129 for denial of reasonable access. RECOMMENDED ORDER Having considered the foregoing findings of facts and conclusions of law, IT IS RECOMMENDED that Complaint No. 2018-129 against Respondent Pro Cuts Construction LLC License No. 300240 shall be closed based on denial of access to perform repairs to comply with the Registrar’s Directive. 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 forty days after the date of that certification. Done this day, November 27, 2018.

/s/ Jenna Clark RECEIVED 11.28.2018 ROC LEGAL

Administrative Law Judge

Transmitted electronically to: Jeffrey Fleetham, Director Registrar of Contractors