FINACT2019A-01402-NPC-ROC.pdf

2019A-01402-NPC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2019-08-06

REGISTRAR OF CONTRACTORS OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA

Vulcan Electric Inc, Case No. 2019-01402 COMPLAINANT, Docket No. 2019A-01402-NPC-ROC v. Danny Meador Construction LLC, FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION License No. ROC 296063, 286709 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.

MODIFICATION AND WRITTEN JUSTIFICATION

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 modifies it as follows.

In the Recommended Order, the administrative law judge recommended revocation of Respondent’s

licenses “until the Registrar receives and accepts written verification that Respondent has paid $6,045.00 to

Complainant in certified funds.” ALJ Dec. 4:11-13. The administrative law judge further recommended that, if

and when Respondent pays Complainant the ordered amount, the Registrar close the complaint.

The Registrar agrees that revocation is appropriate in this case. However, the conditional revocation

recommended by the administrative law judge is inappropriate because once a license is revoked, it may not be

renewed or reissued “for one year after final determination of revocation and then only on proper showing that

all loss caused by the act or omission for which the license was revoked has been fully satisfied.” A.R.S. § 32-

1161(C). Thus, it would make no difference if Respondent, after the effective date of the order revoking its

licenses, paid Complainant the amount ordered. Respondent would still be barred from licensure for at least

one year.

of 3 REGISTRAR OF CONTRACTORS 1700 W. Washington St. Suite 105 – Phoenix, AZ 85007-2812 Telephone (602)542-1525 1-877-692-9762 The Registrar therefore modifies the administrative law judge’s recommended order to order revocation

of Respondent’s licenses without conditions.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

The Registrar modifies the Administrative Law Judge Decision by:

• Replacing the Recommended Order on page 4 with: “IT IS ORDERED that on the effective

date of this order, Respondent’s License Numbers 296063 and 286709 are revoked. It is further

ordered, pursuant to A.R.S. § 32-1161(C), that no future license shall be issued to any person

named on License Numbers 296063 or 286709 for one year after final determination of

revocation, and then only on proper showing that all loss caused by the act or omission for

which the licenses are revoked has been fully satisfied.”

The Registrar hereby accepts the remainder of the Administrative Law Judge Decision, which becomes effective on September 9, 2019. FINAL NOTE On page 2, line 5 replace “Julius Verdin” with “Julian Verdin”.

Dated July 31, 2019.

Registrar of Contractors /s/ Joseph Citelli Joseph Citelli Chief Counsel Chief of Legal Department and Recovery Fund Copy mailed via USPS First Class mail July 31, 2019 to: Respondent Danny Meador Construction LLC 24654 N Lake Pleasant Pkwy Ste 103 #441 Peoria, AZ 85383 Complainant Vulcan Electric Inc 15630 W Port Au Prince Ln Surprise, AZ 85379

of 3 REGISTRAR OF CONTRACTORS 1700 W. Washington St. Suite 105 – Phoenix, AZ 85007-2812 Telephone (602)542-1525 1-877-692-9762 AND copy electronically mailed this same date to: Respondent at email address on record with the Registrar Complainant at email address on record with the Registrar Office of Administrative Hearings Roger A. Geddes, Administrative Law Judge Case No. 2019-01402 / SA

of 3 REGISTRAR OF CONTRACTORS 1700 W. Washington St. Suite 105 – Phoenix, AZ 85007-2812 Telephone (602)542-1525 1-877-692-9762 Received 7/22/2019 ROC Legal

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

Vulcan Electric Inc, No. 2019A-01402-NPC-ROC COMPLAINANT v. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE Danny Meador Construction LLC, DECISION ROC License: ROC 296063, 286709 RESPONDENT

HEARING: July 2, 2019, 9:00 A.M. APPEARANCES: Julian Verdin, President, appeared on behalf of Complainant; no appearance was made on behalf of Respondent ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Roger A. Geddes _____________________________________________________________________ FINDINGS OF FACT BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURE 1. Danny Meador Construction, LLC (Respondent), is the holder of License Numbers 296063 and 286709 issued by the Registrar of Contractors (Registrar). 2. On or about March 18, 2019, Vulcan Electric, Inc. (Complainant), filed a Complaint against Respondent with the Registrar alleging that Respondent owed

Complainant the sum of $6,045.00. This amount represented various unpaid invoices

relating to Complainant’s electrical work performed for Respondent.

3. On April 11, 2019, the Registrar then issued a Citation for Alleged

Violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(10) for the alleged failure by Respondent to pay monies in excess of $750.00 when due for materials or services rendered in connection with Respondent’s operations as a contractor. The Registrar referred the matter to the Office of Administrative Hearings, an independent state agency, for an evidentiary hearing. 4. The Registrar issued a Notice of Hearing that set a hearing for July 2, 2019, at 9:00 A.M. The Registrar mailed a copy of the Notice of Hearing to

Office of Administrative Hearings 1740 West Adams Street, Lower Level Phoenix, Arizona 85007 (602) 542-9826 Received 7/22/2019 ROC Legal

Respondent on or about May 15, 2019, at its address of record. 5. 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.” The Notice of Hearing further advised of the procedure for requesting a continuance of the hearing. 6. At the hearing, Complainant presented the testimony of Julius Verdin, President. The Tribunal received and admitted Complainant’s exhibit numbers 1 - 2.1 7. Although the commencement of the hearing was delayed approximately minutes, Respondent did not appear at any time during the hearing through an authorized officer, employee, attorney, or any other person. Consequently, Respondent did not present any evidence to defend its license. Respondent further did not request to appear telephonically nor did it request that the hearing be continued. Julius Verdin testified on behalf of Complainant as to three outstanding invoices for electrical work totaling $6,045.00. (Complainant’s Exhibit 1). While he

indicated the parties had negotiated a lesser amount to be paid, he testified that the

negotiated amount was contingent upon immediate payment from Respondent, which

he said Respondent did not pay despite its representation to the contrary. As a result,

he stated Complainant now sought the full balance of $6,045.00 owed. 9. Pursuant to Arizona Administrative Code Rule 4-9-117, administrative notice is taken of the Registrar’s public website in which it is indicated that Respondent’s licenses were revoked. The administratively revoked status of Respondent’s license is considered as a factor in aggravation of any determination of discipline. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The Registrar has jurisdiction over this matter, pursuant to A.R.S. § 32- 1101, et seq., which authorizes the Registrar to impose disciplinary sanctions against licenses for violations of A.R.S. § 32-1154.

The Tribunal also took administrative notice of the Registrar’s document submissions to the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings. Received 7/22/2019 ROC Legal

2. The administratively revoked status of Respondent’s licenses does not deprive Complainant of its right to prosecute its complaint against Respondent or prevent the Registrar from determining the merits of Complainant’s complaint. See A.R.S. § 32-1154(D) (“The expiration, cancellation, suspension or revocation of a license . . . shall not deprive the registrar of jurisdiction to proceed with any investigation of or action or disciplinary proceeding against such license, or to render a decision suspending or revoking such a license . . .”). 3. 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 preponderance of the evidence. See Arizona Administrative Code Rule 2- 19-119. 4. To warrant such sanctions by the Registrar, a Complainant must demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated the

statutory section cited. Proof by a “preponderance” means that “the evidence is

sufficient to persuade the finder of fact that the proposition is more likely true than not.”

In re: Arnold and Baker Farms, 177 B.R. 648 (9th Cir. BAP (Ariz.) 1994). See also

Culpepper v. State of Arizona, 187 Ariz. 431, 930 P.2d 508 (App. 1996). It is “evidence which is of greater weight or more convincing than the evidence which is offered in opposition to it; that is, evidence which as a whole shows that the fact sought to be proved is more probable than not.” BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY 1182 (Rev. 6th ed. 1990). 5. A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(10) includes among the grounds for suspension, revocation, or other disciplinary action against a contractor’s license:

[f]ailure by a licensee or agent or official of a 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 Received 7/22/2019 ROC Legal construction work project or operation for which the services or materials were rendered or purchased.

6. The evidence established that Respondent failed to pay the amount of $6,045.00 to Complainant for services rendered in connection with Respondent’s operations as a contractor. There was no evidence presented to rebut the existence or extent of nonpayment. 7. In this matter, Complainant has established that Respondent’s licenses should be disciplined for a violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(10). RECOMMENDED ORDER Based on the foregoing, it is recommended that on the effective date of this order, Respondent’s License Numbers 296063 and 286709 are revoked until the Registrar receives and accepts written verification that Respondent has paid $6,045.00 to Complainant in certified funds. It is further recommended that if and when the Registrar receives and accepts Respondent’s evidence that it has paid Complainant $6,045.00 in certified funds, the

Registrar may close this Complaint.

In the event of certification of this 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 the certification. Done this day, July 22, 2019. /s/ Roger Geddes Administrative Law Judge Transmitted electronically to:

Jeffrey Fleetham, Director Registrar of Contractors