ALJDEC decisions subject to certification as final

2018A-2530-NPC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2018-09-11

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

Rod’s Landscape Irrigation & Maintenance Inc.

DBA: Adobe Curbing,

COMPLAINANT,

v.

Integrated Land Solutions LLC

DBA: ILS Contracting,

License No. 306043

RESPONDENT.

No. 2018A-2530-NPC-ROC

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION

HEARING: August 28, 2018

APPEARANCES: Rodrigo Ruiz for Complainant; Armando Perez and Kristian Hill for Respondent

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Thomas Shedden

_____________________________________________________________________

FINDINGS OF FACT

On July 13, 2018, the Registrar of Contractors (“ROC”) issued a Notice of Hearing setting the above-captioned matter for hearing on August 28, 2018 at the Office of Administrative Hearings.

The Notice of Hearing shows that the hearing was being conducted on the charges made in the Citation and complaint.

Complainant is Rod’s Landscape Irrigation & Maintenance Inc. DBA: Adobe Curbing. Rodrigo Ruiz is complainant’s qualifying party.

Respondent, Integrated Land Solutions LLC DBA: ILS Contracting, holds License No. 306043 issued by ROC. Respondent’s license was revoked by ROC on May 23, 2018 and again on June 14, 2018.

Kristian Hill is Respondent’s qualifying party and Armando Perez is a member of the LLC.

Messrs. Ruiz, Hill and Perez all testified.

There is no dispute that Respondent hired Complainant to install curbing and that Complainant billed Respondent $8662.50 for that work.

In Respondent’s answer, Mr. Perez acknowledged that Respondent owed Complainant the $8662.50, and he asserted that Respondent intended to pay the money, but that this had been a difficult year, and he requested that Complainant and ROC provide him with more time to pay.

At the hearing, Mr. Perez raised a question as to whether the invoice amount was correct, indicating that he thought Respondent should have received a discounted price.

Mr. Perez testified that Respondent does not have the money to pay Complainant and that Respondent has not been paid for the job at issue.

Mr. Hill testified that he had been unaware that Mr. Perez had hired Complainant.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

Unless otherwise provided by law, a party asserting a claim, right, or entitlement bears the burden of proof; a party asserting an affirmative defense has the burden of establishing the affirmative defense. The standard of proof on all issues in this matter is that of a preponderance of the evidence. Ariz. Admin. Code § R2-19-119.

“At a hearing on an agency action to suspend, revoke, terminate or modify on its own initiative material conditions of a license or permit, the agency has the burden of persuasion.” Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 41-1092.07(G)(2).

A preponderance of the evidence is:

The 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.

Black’s Law Dictionary 1373 (10th ed. 2014).

Substantial evidence is evidence that a reasonable mind would use to reach a conclusion. See Mealey v. Arndt, 206 Ariz. 218, 76 P.3d 892 (App. 2003).

Statutes should be interpreted to provide a fair and sensible result. 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.").

“Statutes shall be liberally construed to effect their objects and to promote justice.” Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 1-211(B).

The purpose of the Registrar’s licensing statutes is to protect the public from unscrupulous, unqualified, and financially irresponsible contractors. See Aesthetic Property Maintenance v. Capital Indem. Corp., 183 Ariz. 74, 900 P. 2d 1210 (1995).

Among the grounds for suspension or revocation of a contractor’s license is a “[f]ailure by [the] licensee . . . to pay monies in excess of seven hundred fifty dollars when due for materials or services rendered in connection with the licensee’s operations as a contractor when the licensee has the capacity to pay or, if the licensee lacks the capacity to pay, when the licensee has received sufficient monies as payment for the particular construction work project or operation for which the services or materials were rendered or purchased.” Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(10).

Respondent, through its answer, acknowledged that it owes Complainant $8662.50. The preponderance of the evidence shows that this was for services rendered in connection with Respondent’s license.

Although Mr. Perez testified that Respondent has not itself been paid for the job, and to the effect that Respondent does not have the capacity to pay, Respondent presented no evidence to corroborate this testimony, and the testimony is not substantial evidence.

The preponderance of the evidence to show that Respondent has violated section 32-1154(A)(10).

RECOMMENDED ORDER

IT IS ORDERED that that Integrated Land Solutions LLC DBA: ILS Contracting’s License No. 306043 is revoked.

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, September 11, 2018

/s/ Thomas Shedden

Thomas Shedden

Administrative Law Judge

Transmitted electronically to:

Jeffrey Fleetham, Director

Registrar of Contractors