ALJDEC decisions subject to certification as final

2022A-00870-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2022-08-08

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

Dikranouhi Krikorian,

COMPLAINANT

Apodaca's Glass & Door LLC

License No. ROC 325372,

RESPONDENT

No. 2022A-00870-CHC-ROC

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION

HEARING: August 5, 2022

APPEARANCES: Complainant Dikranouhi Krikorian appeared on her own behalf. Respondent Apodaca’s Glass & Door LLC did not appear.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Tammy L. Eigenheer

_____________________________________________________________________

FINDINGS OF FACT

Apodaca’s Glass & Door LLC (Respondent) is the holder of License No. 325372 issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (Registrar).

On or about December 20, 2021, Dikranouhi Krikorian (Complainant) entered into a contract with Respondent for the installation of a new window in her bathroom.

On or about February 3, 2022, the Registrar received a Complaint against Respondent from Complainant alleging poor work with respect to the project.

The Registrar assigned the complaint to Investigator Steve Klein. After a jobsite inspection, Investigator Klein issued a written directive 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 April 27, 2022.

. . . .

DIRECTIVE REQUIREMENTS

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

Complaint #1 The window was not installed properly and does not close evenly.

Inspector’s Observation: I verified the second bath window needs adjustment.

• Respondent shall correct by the appropriate means.

Complaint #2 The rubber surrounding the glass window was not installed properly and there is a gap.

Inspector’s Observation: I verified the rubber molding does not seal completely at the bottom of the second bath window and in addition the window is scratched.

• Respondent shall correct by the appropriate means.

Complaint #3 The window does not open straight it wiggles in place when pushed up and opened or when pushed down.

Inspector’s Observation: I verified the second bath window needs adjustment.

• Respondent shall correct by the appropriate means.

Following the issuance of the written directive, Respondent performed work on the project in an attempt to correct the issue. After the deadline in the directive expired, Investigator Klein was notified the corrective work had not been completed.

On or about May 23, 2022, Investigator Klein conducted a compliance jobsite inspection. At that time, Investigator Klein noted that the window was in worse condition than at the original jobsite inspection and would not close all the way.

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

The Registrar referred the matter to the Office of Administrative Hearings, an independent state agency, for an evidentiary hearing.

The Registrar issued a Notice of Hearing, setting a hearing at 1:00 p.m. on August 5, 2022. The Registrar mailed copies of the Notice of Hearing to Respondent at its address and email address of record. A July 29, 2022 order from the Office of Administrative Hearings advised the parties of how to connect to the hearing via Google Meet. The hearing was held via Google Meet on August 5, 2022.

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

Investigator Klein testified as to his observations of the project.

Complainant testified as to the measures Respondent took after the directive was issued to attempt to fix the issue. Complainant noted that she rearranged her schedule to allow Respondent to come fix the window when it was available to do so, but the window was not repaired at any time. Complainant indicated that Respondent sent her messages asking her to drop the complaint even though the poor work had not been repaired.

Administrative notice is taken of Respondent’s prior License record on August 5, 2022. Such prior License record reflects that Respondent’s License No. 325372 was first issued on July 12, 2019, and was active. Such prior License record also reflects that there were no other open or prior complaints against Respondent’s license.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

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

The copies of the Notice of Hearing that the Registrar mailed to Respondent at its address and email address of record were reasonable and Respondent is deemed to have received notice of the hearing. A.R.S. §§ 41-1092.04 and 41-1092.05(D).

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 evidence established that Respondent’s work was not in conformity with the Registrar’s standards. 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.

The evidence established that Respondent did not complete the corrective work following the Directive being issued. Therefore, Complainant established that Respondent failed to take appropriate corrective action following a written directive from the Registrar in violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22).

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. 325372 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 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 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 40 days from the date of that certification.

-54864001

001

-137160-45720000Done this day, August 8, 2022.

/s/ Tammy L. Eigenheer

Administrative Law Judge

Transmitted electronically to:

Jeffrey Fleetham, Director

Registrar of Contractors

-54864001

001

-137160-45720000By Miranda Alvarez

Legal Secretary