FINACT2020A-01286.pdf

2020A-01286-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2020-11-06

REGISTRAR OF CONTRACTORS OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA

Soo Chang Conatser , Case No. 2020-01286 COMPLAINANT, Docket No. 2020A-01286-CHC-ROC v. Green Valley Screens LLC, FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE License No. ROC 305144, DECISION 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 of each finding of fact or conclusion of law. REGISTRAR’S ACCEPTANCE 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 accepts it. CONCLUSION AND ORDER Because the Registrar has accepted the administrative law judge’s decision, that decision is the final administrative decision in this case and becomes effective on October 10, 2020. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent pay a civil penalty in the amount of $500.00 payable to the Registrar on or before 30 days from the effective date of this Order. Payment may be hand-delivered to the Registrar’s physical address or mailed to:

of 3 REGISTRAR OF CONTRACTORS 1700 W. Washington St.– Ste. 105 – Phoenix, AZ 85007-2812 Telephone (602)542-1525 Toll Free (877)692-9762 Lg131 8/19 Registrar of Contractors P.O. Box 6748 Phoenix, Arizona 85505-6748

FINAL NOTE Page 1, paragraph 5, line 27, replace “May 8, 2020” with “March 14, 2020” Page 5, paragraph 7, lines 10 and 11, delete “Investigator’s Observation: Verified: I observed scratches on the screen frame.” and insert the same on page 2, paragraph 7, line 15. Page 5, paragraph, 7, lines 20 and 21, replace “Governing Rule: N/AYou are hereby directed to remedy the following violations by the appropriate means:” with “Governing Rule: N/A” Page 5, paragraph 7, delete lines 22 through 30 Page 6, paragraph 7, delete lines 1 through 13

Dated August 31, 2020.

By: /s/ Joseph Citelli Joseph Citelli Chief Counsel Chief of Legal Department and Recovery Fund Arizona Registrar of Contractors Copy mailed via USPS First Class mail August 31, 2020 to:

Respondent Green Valley Screens LLC 620 W Ward Ln Ste 140 Green Valley, AZ 85614

Complainant Soo Chang Conatser 13956 S Camino Coso Sahuarita, AZ 85629

of 3 REGISTRAR OF CONTRACTORS 1700 W. Washington St.– Ste. 105 – Phoenix, AZ 85007-2812 Telephone (602)542-1525 Toll Free (877)692-9762 Lg131 8/19 Copy sent electronically this same date to:

Office of Administrative Hearings Velva Moses-Thompson, Administrative Law Judge

Respondent at email address on record with the Registrar Complainant at email address on record with the Registrar

Case No. 2020-01286 / MB

of 3 REGISTRAR OF CONTRACTORS 1700 W. Washington St.– Ste. 105 – Phoenix, AZ 85007-2812 Telephone (602)542-1525 Toll Free (877)692-9762 Lg131 8/19 RECEIVED 8/17/2020 State of Arizona Mail - New ALJ Decision transmitted for ROC (2020A-01286-CHC-ROC) 8.14.2020 ROC LEGAL

OAH ALJ Recommendations - AZROC <[email redacted]>

New ALJ Decision transmitted for ROC (2020A-01286-CHC-ROC) message

OAH Electronic Decision Transmission System <[email redacted]> Fri, Aug 14, 2020 at 8:20 AM To: [email redacted]

This is a message from the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings to inform you that a decision has been transmitted for Registrar of Contractors. The details are as follows:

Decision type: ALJ Decision Matter ID: 2020A-01286-CHC-ROC Filed by: OAH Filed on: 8/14/2020 Due Date for Final Agency Action (if applicable): 9/17/2020

You may access this decision at https://portal.azoah.com/aljdec/documents/ROC/2020A-01286-CHC-ROC-ALJDecision- 7197.pdf.

To view all available ALJ decisions, visit https://portal.azoah.com/aljdec/documents/ROC/.

https://mail.google.com/mail/b/ALGkd0xTjHc3mXW-QR_mRVfG-RDiSpMCphkLxiA6D9eFrQUIJbRS/u/0?ik=5d3b7d39d0&view=pt&search=all&permth… 1/1 RECEIVED 8.14.2020 ROC LEGAL

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

Soo Chang Conatser, No. 2020A-01286-CHC-ROC

COMPLAINANT, ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION v.

Green Valley Screens, LLC, License No. ROC 305144, RESPONDENT.

HEARING: July 24, 2020 APPEARANCES: Complainant Soo Chang Conatser appeared on behalf of herself. Doreen Thompson appeared on behalf of Green Valley Screens, LLC (Green Valley). ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Velva Moses-Thompson _____________________________________________________________________ FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Green Valley holds license number 305144 issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (Registrar). William Stearnes II is a member of Green Valley. 2. On or about December 7, 2019, Complainant Soo Chang Conatser and Green Valley entered into a contract wherein Green Valley would install solar screens on the windows of Ms. Conatser’s home. 3. On or about February 20, 2020, Green Valley started work under the contract.

4. On or about February 28, 2020, Green Valley completed the solar screen

installation.

5. On or about May 8, 2020, the Registrar received a complaint from

Ms. Conatser alleging poor workmanship on the part of Green Valley.

6. On or about April 14, 2020, Investigator Gregory Johndrow conducted a

jobsite inspection. RECEIVED 8.14.2020 ROC LEGAL

7. On April 17, 2020, Investigator Johndrow issued a DIRECTIVE. The April 17, 20 DIRECTIVE provided, in relevant part, as follows: After investigation, the Registrar has substantiated that your work fails to meet minimum workmanship standards. A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) A.A.C. R4-9-108. Failure to comply with this Directive constitutes a violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22) and may result in the issuance of a citation, discipline of your license, and a civil penalty pursuant to A.R.S. § 32-1154(E) of up to $500.00. You must notify the Registrar’s assigned Investigator of your compliance with this Directive prior to 5:00 p.m. on May 5, 2020. DIRECTIVE REQUIREMENTS Complaint Item 2: “Initial installation of the two screens (approximate sizes 46.5" x 47" & 93.5" x 49") was completed around 2/21/20. A corner of the larger screen (top left) was loose. During that weekend it was rainy and windy. The larger of the two screens fell off its mounting tabs to the ground due to poor installation. This caused scratches to the black screen frame.

Governing Rule: A.R.S. § 32-1154 (A) 3: Violation of any rule adopted by the registrar, Namely R 4-9-108: (A) A contractor shall perform work in a professional and workmanlike manner. Complaint Item 3: “The following week the larger screen was removed based on our complaint. By 2/28/20 a new screen was installed but our original screens built into the window frame were now removed (but were not removed during the initial installation for 2/21/20). They were taken off the house disposed of and destroyed. We were not consulted about this nor was it stated in the statement of work to be performed.” Investigator’s Observation: Verified: I observed the two screens for the window unit are missing. The Respondent stated the screens will be replaced with like kind and quality. Governing Rule: A.R.S. § 32-1154 (A) 3: Violation of any rule adopted by the registrar, Namely R 4-9-108: (A) A contractor shall perform work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

2 RECEIVED 8.14.2020 ROC LEGAL

Complaint Item 4: “We were told back on 12/7/19 that the solar screens were to be easily removed from the windows to be cleaned, but the larger screen had been drilled such that it would require an electric screwdriver to remove.” Investigator’s Observation: Verified: I was unable to operate the screen wing tabs by hand. Governing Rule: A.R.S. § 32-1154 (A) 3: Violation of any rule adopted by the registrar, Namely R 4-9-108: (A) A contractor shall perform work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

Complaint Item 7: “The final product on the big window had the screen frame colored with a black sharpie in some areas to cover the scratches. The frame was bent and bowed. The screen was larger than it was installed the previous week. There were scratches on the frame from when it fell. Scratches appear to have been marked on the window frame to mark measurements when installing. The screws were green but the screw heads were colored black with a black sharpie. The two window screens were installed with different screw types: a Philips screw and socket hex screw. The tabs holding up the frame were not symmetrically placed on the window. There were visible rivets on the frame. We met with Richard on 2/29/20 and while he acknowledged all of these issues, he pointed out additional items that he thought were problematic with the work and actually offered to provide a new frame completely before we asked for a partial refund.”

Investigator’s Observation: Verified: I observed all of the poor workmanship as described in the Complainant’s allegation. Governing Rule: A.R.S. § 32-1154 (A) 3: Violation of any rule adopted by the registrar, Namely R 4-9-108: (A) A contractor shall perform work in a professional and workmanlike manner. ITEMS NOT REQUIRING CORRECTION

3 RECEIVED 8.14.2020 ROC LEGAL

The following complaint items require no action by the Respondent: Complaint Item 1: “Assuming the signed “proposal” is the contract, the contract failed to include the estimated date of completion although orally it was communicated it would be complete within 6-8 weeks. It was actually completed within weeks with subsequent visits to attempt to fix problems.” Investigator’s Observation: This statement by the complainant does not implicate a workmanship issue for me to observe and report on. Governing Rule: N/A Complaint Item 5: “Multiple holes were drilled into the house stucco during the new installation but holes were previously drilled into the window frame during the initial installation. During the initial installation of the larger screen, three separate holes were drilled in an attempt to secure the top left corner due to improper installation. Had we not complained, the contractor would have left the two additional holes in the window frame "open" and unpatched.”

Investigator’s Observation: Unverified: I was unable to observe the holes described during the inspection.

Governing Rule: N/A

Complaint Item 6: “When the larger screen was being re- installed, my husband was home and could hear the individuals installing the screen talking to each other sarcastically saying, "looks really professional, huh?" when referring to using a marker to cover the scratches and screw heads.” Investigator’s Observation: This statement by the complainant does not implicate a workmanship issue for me to observe and report on. Governing Rule: N/A Complaint Item 8: “After a number of complaints for poor installments, on 2/29/20 Richard agreed to refund $1000 in lieu of fixing the problems. This was witnessed by one of his 4 RECEIVED 8.14.2020 ROC LEGAL

foreman who was introduced to us as Frank. Richard signed on the original written proposal agreeing to this refund. On 3/9/20, upon our calling to request the status of the refund, he said he changed his mind. On 3/10/20, he offered $750 instead of $1000. When asked how we would guarantee that he would not change his mind again, he rescinded that offer and said to file a complaint. We have audio recordings of this phone call.” Investigator’s Observation: Unverified: Although this complaint item alleges a financial dispute with the respondent, it alleges nothing indicating grounds for discipline under A.R.S. § 32-1154(A).

Governing Rule: N/A Investigator’s Observation: Verified: I observed scratches on the screen frame. Complaint Item 9: “It is unknown what Richard’s relation is to the qualifying member under the ROC #305144. When he agreed to refund $1000 initially he said his accountant William Stearnes would mail us the check. William Stearnes is also a member under the ROC#. An internet search shows a William Stearnes in Green Valley being currently under federal indictment for tax fraud.”

Investigator’s Observation: This statement by the complainant does not implicate a workmanship issue for me to observe and report on. Governing Rule: N/AYou are hereby directed to remedy the following violations by the appropriate means: Work related to plumbing installation on this project required a building permit. *Obtain building permit and obtain necessary inspections and approvals from the governing code enforcement authority. Complaint Item 2: Concrete is cracking and cuts made are chipped. *Correct crack and poor patch at front of driveway near road. Note: Saw cut joints are acceptable. 5 RECEIVED 8.14.2020 ROC LEGAL

Complaint Item 3: Concrete is not level. *Correct unleveled and poorly installed concrete around water box at end of driveway on the right.

Complaint Item 4: Workers got concrete on my block wall which was not cleaned up.

*Correct (clean, remove) all concrete splatter on house, fence and any adjacent items. Remove all concrete debris from yard and on bushes. Complaint Item 5: Footprint left on concrete. *Correct locations of foot print on back patio concrete. Complaint Item 6: Border bricks ruined with staining from concrete. *Correct concrete staining on border bricks at front of home.

8. Green Valley failed to correct items listed under the DIRECTIVE by the due

date.

9. On May 7, 2020, Investigator Johndrow conducted a compliance job site

inspection. Investigator Johndrow observed that Green Valley had not made any

repairs.

10. On or about May 8, 2020, the Registrar issued a CITATION against Green

Valley’s license. Through the CITATION, the Registrar alleges that Green Valley may have violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 32-1154(3) (specifically, ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE section R4-9-108), and ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 32- 1154(A)(22). 11. Green Valley filed a timely answer to the CITATION.1 William Stearnes II expressed in the answer that Green Valley was unable to comply with the DIRECTIVE because the father of one its workers was ill and in the hospital. Mr. Stearnes wrote that the worker wanted to go and visit his father and he was distracted from the job. 12. The matter was referred to the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) for an evidentiary hearing.

1 See the Registrar’s Administrative Record, pg. 73. 6 RECEIVED 8.14.2020 ROC LEGAL

13. On June 24, 2020, the Registrar of Contractors, (Registrar), issued a NOTICE OF HEARING setting the matter for hearing on July 24, 2020, by the OAH in Phoenix, Arizona. 14. A hearing was held on July 24, 2020. 15. At hearing, Ms. Conatser testified on behalf of herself. Ms. Thompson testified on behalf of Green Valley. Investigator Johndrow testified regarding his investigation of the compliant and the issuance of the DIRECTIVE. 16. Ms. Conatser explained that Green Valley performed poor work and failed to comply with the Registrar’s DIRECTIVE. 17. Ms. Thompson stated that Green Valley was unable to finish the job because one of Green Valley’s worker’s injured himself close to time of the DIRECTIVE deadline. 18. Administrative notice is taken of Green Valley’s prior License record as reflected on the Registrar’s public website on August 13, 2020. Such prior License record reflects that Green Valley’s License No. 305144 was first issued on June 16, 2016, and is active. The record also reflects that there is one open complaint pending against the license. The prior License record also reflects that one complaint has resulted in discipline against Green Valley’s license. The prior License record also shows that three complaints were closed against Green Valley because the complaints were resolved or settled by Green Valley or withdrawn by the complainant after the issuance of a corrective work order of formal citation. 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. 2. To warrant such sanctions by the Registrar, 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. 7 RECEIVED 8.14.2020 ROC LEGAL

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). 3. The evidence presented at hearing established that the work performed by Green Valley was not in compliance with the Registrar’s workmanship standards. 4. The preponderance of the evidence shows that Green Valley did not perform the work in a professional and workmanlike manner, which is a violation of A.A.C. R4-9-108, and thereby of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3).2 5. The preponderance of the evidence established that Green Valley failed to comply with the DIRECTIVE without valid justification, which is a violation of A.R.S. § 32- 1154(A)(22).3 RECOMMENDED ORDER Based on the foregoing, it is recommended that on the effective date of the order in this matter, License No. 305144 of Green Valley Screens, LLC, shall be suspended for a period of three days. It is further recommended that the Registrar require Respondent to pay the sum of $500.00 as a civil penalty pursuant to A.R.S. § 32-1154(E). It is further recommended that if Respondent fails to pay the entire amount of the civil penalty on or before thirty days following the effective date of the Registrar’s Order, the Registrar revoke Respondent’s license, effective on such deadline date. No future license shall be issued to any entity consisting of persons associated with Respondent, as defined in A.R.S. § 32-1101(A)(7), unless Respondent tenders payment of any outstanding prior civil penalty.

A.A.C. R4-9-108 requires that “[a]ll work shall be performed in a professional and workmanlike manner” and that “[a]ll work shall be performed in accordance with any applicable building codes and professional industry standards.” A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) includes among the grounds for suspension, revocation, or other disciplinary action against a contractor’s license, “[v]iolation of any rule adopted by the registrar.” A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22) includes among the grounds for suspension, revocation, or other disciplinary action against a contractor’s license, “[f]ailure to take appropriate corrective action to comply with this chapter or with rules adopted pursuant to this chapter without valid justification within a reasonable period of time after receiving a written directive from the registrar.” 8 RECEIVED 8.14.2020 ROC LEGAL

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. Done this day, August 13, 2020.

/s/ Velva Moses-Thompson Administrative Law Judge

Transmitted electronically to: Jeffrey Fleetham, Director Registrar of Contractors

9