ALJDEC decisions subject to certification as final

2020A-00720-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2020-07-01

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

Philip Kaufman,

COMPLAINANT

Builders Investment Group LLC,

License No. ROC 306835,

RESPONDENT

No. 2020A-00720-CHC-ROC

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION

HEARING: June 26, 2020

APPEARANCES: Complainant Philip Kaufman appeared on his own behalf via Google Meet. Mandy Kaufman, wife of Complainant, appeared on her own behalf via Google Meet. David Fagerburg appeared on behalf of the Arizona Registrar of Contractors. Respondent did not appear.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Adam D. Stone

_____________________________________________________________________

FINDINGS OF FACT

According to the Arizona Registrar of Contractors’ (“the Registrar’s”) public website, on or about September 19, 2016, the Registrar issued License No. ROC 306835 for General Residential B Contracting to Respondent. Respondent’s member/qualifying party is Gregory P. Coe.

On or about September 27, 2019, Philip Kaufman (Complainant) entered into a contract with Respondent to provide synthetic stucco siding for a total contracted price of $28,576.00. An initial credit card payment was made on September 30, 2020, in the amount of $10,606.30.

After a series of delays, work commenced on January 2, 2020.

Complainant testified that work was done for three (3) days and on January 6, 2020, Respondent claimed they ran out of materials and requested additional money.

Complainant paid an additional $14,923.71, which included materials and labor on January 6, 2020, in hopes that work would commence once again.

Complainant testified that Respondent again failed to appear for work until January 10, 2020, and then worked until January 14, 2020.

Complainant further testified that on January 15, 2020, Respondent failed to appear again, claiming they ran out materials once again. Respondent did return to work on January 20, 2020.

Complainant testified that on or about January 23, 2020, the sub-contractor, “Mauricio”, advised that they would not keep working without being paid. Further, there was no work completed on January 24, 2020, nor during the week of January 27, 2020, through January 31, 2020.

Complainant testified that he was able to have a meeting with Mr. Coe, wherein Mr. Coe requested that Complainant sign a document which would shift the payment liability for the sub-contractors. Complainant refused to execute the same. During that meeting, Complainant requested the telephone number for the sub-contractor Mauricio, as Complainant could contract with Mauricio directly. Mr. Coe delayed in giving the number to Complainant until February 24, 2020.

To date, Complainant has paid $25,529.91 for the work under the contract.

On or about February 11, 2020, the Registrar received a Complaint against Respondent from Complainant alleging abandonment with respect to the project.

The Registrar assigned the complaint to Investigator David Fagerburg. A jobsite inspection was completed on February 26, 2020, and Respondent was not present. Mr. Fagerburg noted in the Jobsite Inspection Notes that work was supposed to be completed approximately 30 days from the start date of the project which should have been around February 1, 2020. Investigator Fagerburg noted that, “[i]t appears that the work is approximately 60% and is nearly a month behind the estimated completion date.” See Jobsite Inspection Notes.

The Registrar issued a Citation against Respondent, charging a possible violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(1).

On or about March 20, 2020, Respondent sent a letter disputing the claim and request that the claim be dismissed.

A Notice of Hearing was issued on May 22, 2020, and was properly noticed. The copy of the Notice of Hearing that the Registrar mailed to Respondent at its address of record was reasonable and Respondent is deemed to have received notice of the hearing. A.R.S. §§ 41-1092.04 and 41-1092.05(D). Further, a subsequent Order was sent on or about June 17, 2020, informing all parties that due to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, the hearing would now take place via Google Meet.

Neither Respondent nor its representatives appeared at the time of the hearing. Further, Respondent has failed to otherwise provide an excuse for its failure to appear.

Administrative notice is taken of Respondent’s prior License record on June 29, 2020. Such prior License record reflects that Respondent’s License No. 306835 was first issued on September 19, 2016, and is currently suspended as of March 30, 2020. Such prior License record also reflects that there are three other open complaints against Respondent’s license.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

This matter lies within the Registrar’s jurisdiction. See A.R.S. § 32-1101 et seq.

Complainant bears the burden of proof to establish Respondent’s statutory violations by a preponderance of the evidence. See A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2); A.A.C. R2-19-119(A) and A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1); see also Vazanno v. Superior Court, 74 Ariz. 369, 372, 249 P.2d 837 (1952). “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 evidence established that the work was only about 60% completed, and therefore, Complainant established that Respondent abandoned the contract in violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(1).

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Based on the foregoing, it is recommended that on the effective date of the Order, the Registrar shall suspend Respondent’s License No. 306835 for a period of thirty days.

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 will be 40 days from the date of that certification.

-54864001

001

-137160-45720000Done this day, July 1, 2020.

/s/ Adam D. Stone

Administrative Law Judge

Transmitted electronically to:

Jeffrey Fleetham, Director

Registrar of Contractors

-54864001

001

-137160-45720000