ALJDEC decisions subject to certification as final
2019A-01348-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2020-04-20
IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
Matthew Charles Price,
COMPLAINANT
v.
M & M Diversified LLC,
ROC License: ROC 288011,
RESPONDENT.
No. 2019A-01348-CHC-ROC
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION
HEARING: March 31, 2020
APPEARANCES: Complainant Matthew Charles Price appeared on behalf of himself. Sean Mendoza appeared on behalf of Respondent M & M Diversified, LLC.
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Velva Moses-Thompson
_____________________________________________________________________
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. On or about July 10, 2018, Complainant Matthew Charles Price and Respondent M & M Diversified, LLC (M & M) entered into a construction contract wherein M & M would remodel Mr. Price’s home.
2. On or about July 10, 2018, M & M began work on Mr. Price’s home.
3. On or about March 18, 2019, the Registrar received a complaint from
Mr. Price alleging poor workmanship on the part of M & M in connection with a residential remodeling contract.
4. Investigator Mike Springer conducted a jobsite inspection and issued a Directive to M & M to repair the leaks at Mr. Price’s back porch. M & M did not repair the leaks at Mr. Price’s back porch by the due date listed in the Directive.
5. On September 25, 2019, the Registrar issued a Citation against M & M’s license. Through the Citation, the Registrar alleged that M & M may have violated A.A.C. R4-9-108, and thereby Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) § 32-1154(A)(3); and A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22).
6. M & M filed a timely response to the Citation.
7. The matter was referred to the Office of Administrative hearings for an evidentiary hearing.
8. A hearing was held on March 31, 2020.
9. At hearing, Mr. Price testified on behalf of himself. Sean Mendoza testified on behalf of M & M. Investigator Springer testified regarding his investigation of the complaint, the issuance of the Directive, and M & M’s corrective work.
10. Mr. Mendoza and Investigator Springer explained that M & M has since repaired the leaks on Mr. Price’s back porch. Investigator Springer explained that M & M repaired the leaks in connection with a separate complaint filed by Mr. Price.
Mr. Mendoza asserted that it has rained since he repaired Mr. Price’s back porch.
11. Mr. Price did not dispute that M & M had repaired the leaks on his back porch. Mr. Price stated that it has not rained and that he could not be sure whether the repair was appropriate until the Monsoon season.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
This matter lies within the Registrar’s jurisdiction. See A.R.S. § 32-
1154(A).
The burden of proof at an administrative hearing falls to the party
asserting a claim, right, or entitlement and the standard of proof on all issues in these matters is by a preponderance of the evidence. See A.A.C. R2-19-119.
A preponderance of the evidence is “such proof as convinces the trier of
fact that the contention is more probably true than not.” Morris K. Udall, Arizona Law of Evidence § 5 (1960).
The preponderance of the evidence shows that M & M had not performed
its work in professional manner at the time that the Directive was issued, which is a violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3).
5. The preponderance of the evidence shows that M & M violated A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22) by failing to comply with the Registrar’s Directive by the due date.
6. However, the preponderance of the evidence also shows that M & M has since repaired the leaks at Mr. Price’s back porch. Therefore, it is not appropriate in this case to impose discipline or a civil penalty.
RECOMMENDed order
In view of the foregoing, it is recommended that this matter be dismissed.
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, April 20, 2020.
/s/ Velva Moses-Thompson
Administrative Law Judge
Transmitted electronically to:
Jeffrey Fleetham, Director
Registrar of Contractors