ALJDEC decisions subject to certification as final

2019A-04968-NPC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2020-01-23

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

Stealth Demolition Inc.,

COMPLAINANT

Method Construction LLC,

License No. ROC 273092,

RESPONDENT

No. 2019A-04968-NPC-ROC

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE

DECISION

HEARING: January 6, 2020

APPEARANCES: Joey Caviar for Complainant; Adrian Wilson for Respondent

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Thomas Shedden

FINDINGS OF FACT

On November 27, 2019, the Registrar of Contractors (“ROC”) issued a Notice of Hearing on Contested Case setting the above-captioned matter for hearing on January 6, 2020 at the Office of Administrative Hearings.

The Notice of Hearing shows that the hearing was being conducted on the charges made in the complaint and citation that were served on Respondent Method Construction LLC on October 24, 2019.

Respondent holds License No. 273092 issued by ROC. Adrian Wilson is Respondent’s owner.

Complainant is Stealth Demolition LLC.

Respondent hired Complainant to perform work at a construction project.

Respondent has not paid Complainant $31,015 for its work and Respondent acknowledges that it owes Complainant for the work at issue.

Respondent has itself not been paid for the work at issue and does not have sufficient funds pay Complainant.

Respondent has engaged legal counsel in its dispute with the project owner. Respondent has made unsuccessful efforts to have the owner pay Complainant directly.

Respondent has been working with its “insurance” to get Complainant paid.

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).

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).

The preponderance of the evidence shows that Respondent owes Complainant more than $750 for services rendered in connection with Respondent’s license, but Respondent does not have the capacity to pay and has itself not been paid for the work at issue.

It has not been shown by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent has violated section 32-1154(A)(10).

RECOMMENDED ORDER

IT IS ORDERED that case number 2019-04968 is 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.

-54864001

001

-137160-45720000Done this day, January 23, 2020.

/s/ Thomas Shedden

Thomas Shedden

Administrative Law Judge

Transmitted electronically to:

Jeffrey Fleetham, Director

Registrar of Contractors

-54864001

001

-137160-45720000