ALJDEC decisions subject to certification as final

2021A-04672-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2022-02-04

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

Christopher Weger,

COMPLAINANT

Lopez Electric LLC

License No. ROC 330155,

RESPONDENT

No. 2021A-04672-CHC-ROC

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION

HEARING: January 25, 2022

APPEARANCES: Complainant Christopher Weger appeared via Google Meet. Registrar of Contractors Investigator Steve Hammons appeared via Google Meet.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Adam D. Stone

_____________________________________________________________________

FINDINGS OF FACT

Lopez Electric, LLC (Respondent) is the holder of License No. 330155 issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (Registrar).

On or about August 28, 2021, Christopher Weger (Complainant) agreed to have Respondent install four lights on each of his four pillars in his backyard. The total cost was to be $750.00 and Complainant paid the full amount.

On or about September 20, 2021, the Registrar received a Complaint containing seven items against Respondent from Complainant alleging poor work with respect to project.

The Registrar assigned the complaint to Investigator Steve Hammons. The jobsite inspection was performed on October 7, 2021.

Investigator Hammons then issued a written directive on or about October 8, 2021, to Respondent that provided as follows:

After investigation, the Registrar determined that you failed to meet the requirements of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A), and now issues this Directive requiring you to take appropriate corrective action. 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 October 28, 2021.

. . .

DIRECTIVE REQUIREMENTS

You are directed to remedy the following violations by the appropriate means:

Complaint Item 3: “The contractor installed the low voltage lights to 120V without a transformer knowing the lights were rated at 12-24V AC/DC.”

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. The complainant pointed out and showed me the Low Voltage lighting that had been installed in his concrete wall pillars. The complainant also provided me with original packaging that contained the low voltage lighting. The package clearly states 12V, and has verbiage reference when to connect the low voltage lights to the “Transformer”. The complainant also showed me on the light fixture itself the manufacture sticker that states 12V.

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 4: “16 lights valued at $360.00 believed to be blown out.”

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. The Compliant pointed out and showed me that the low voltage lights were to be connected to his interior light switch that operated his front outdoor lights. The complainant pointed out that when he turned them on they blew the circuit breaker and the low voltage lights as well. I followed the electric lines and did not observe a low voltage Transformer anywhere.

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 5: “After initial complaint to contractor. He refused to come back and correct the work he had started.”

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. The Complainant pointed out and showed me where the low voltage lights had been disconnected from the line.

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 6: “Have not been in contact with the contractor since Tuesday 9/14/2021. Have since had to hire a new contractor to complete the unfinished work.”

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. The Complainant pointed out and showed me the low voltage line disconnected from the line. The complainant also confirmed he has not hired anyone yet and no one has modified the work.

Governing Rule: A.R.S. § 32-1154 (A) 1: Abandonment of a contract or refusal to perform after submitting a bid on work without legal excuse for the abandonment or refusal.

Complaint Item 7: “Informed of Lopez Electric LLC license suspension after the work.”

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. ROC License suspended date of 2/23/21, No QP contract date 8/28/21.

Governing Rule: A.R.S. § 32-1154 (A) 17: Contracting or offering to contract or submitting a bid while the license is under suspension or while the license is on inactive status.

(All errors contained in the original)

On November 17, 2021, the Registrar issued a Citation against Respondent, charging possible violations of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(1); A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(a); and A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22).

On or about November 29, 2021, Respondent e-mailed an Answer to the Registrar, stating that Complainant he believed that Complainant only requested four lights in total, but that now he was requesting sixteen.

On or about December 20, 2021, a Notice of Hearing was issued setting a hearing on January 25, 2022, at the Office of Administrative Hearings, an independent state agency.

At hearing, Investigator Hammons testified as to the Registrar’s involvement and the above timeline.

Investigator Hammons testified that the lights which were “low voltage”, were supposed to be connected to a transformer, which Respondent failed to do. Further, because of this all, 16 lights “blew out” and were left in a “blown out” state. Investigator Hammons testified that Respondent never performed the corrective work. Investigator Hammons testified further that Complainant showed him the packaging requiring that the lights be connected to a transformer.

Complainant testified that he hired Respondent after being referred by his pool contractor, Leo Garcia. Complainant testified that he hired Respondent to install 16 lights in total and the invoice reflected the same.

Complainant testified further that Mr. Lopez told him that his work was top-notch, and refused to perform the corrections.

Finally, Complainant testified that it did not surprise him that Respondent did not appear at the hearing because Mr. Lopez failed to attend the jobsite inspection.

The Registrar mailed copies of the Notice of Hearing to Respondent at its address and email address of record.

Although the start of the hearing was delayed 15 minutes, Respondent did not appear through an authorized member, employee, or attorney. Further, Respondent did not request that the hearing be continued. Consequently, Respondent did not present any evidence to defend its license.

Administrative notice is taken of Respondent’s prior License record on February 4, 2022. Such prior License record reflects that Respondent’s License No. 330155, was suspended due to lack of a Qualifying Party. The license was first issued on August 18, 2004, and reflects that there was one open complaint, namely the present complaint.

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 Vazzano 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 preponderance of the evidence established that Respondent’s work was not in conformity with the Registrar’s standards. Per Investigator Hammons the packaging for the lights instructed that they be connected to a transformer and they were not. Therefore, Complainant established that Respondent did not complete the project in a workmanlike manner in violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(A).

The evidence established Respondent failed to complete the corrective work following the Directive being issued and failed to respond to Complainant to install the full 16 lights. Therefore, Complainant established that Respondent failed to take appropriate corrective action following a written directive from the Registrar in violation of and A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(1) and A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22).

A.R.S. § 32-1156.01 provides that “[a]fter a hearing pursuant to this article, an administrative law judge may recommend that a licensee provide restitution to any person who is injured or whose property is damaged by an action of the licensee.” Given the fact that all of the lights blew out due to lack of the transformer the ALJ concludes that restitution for the damaged lights is appropriate. Per the Written Directive, the lights were valued at $360.00.

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. 330155 for a period of five days.

It is further recommended that the Registrar require Respondent to pay to Complainant the sum of $360.00 as restitution pursuant to A.R.S. § 32-1156.01.

It is further recommended that if Respondent fails to pay the entire amount of the restitution on or before thirty days following the effective date of the Registrar’s final 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)(5), unless Respondent tenders payment of any outstanding restitution.

It is further recommended that the Registrar require Respondent to pay the sum of $400.00 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 final 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.

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 30 days from the date of that certification.

-54864001

001

-137160-45720000Done this day, February 4, 2022.

/s/ Adam D. Stone

Administrative Law Judge

Transmitted electronically to:

Jeffrey Fleetham, Director

Registrar of Contractors

-54864001

001

-137160-45720000