ALJDEC - Licensing
2022A-04676-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2023-02-08
IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
Alan Ralph,
COMPLAINANT
v.
Leckie Investments LLC
License No. ROC 325010,
RESPONDENT
No. 2022A-04676-CHC-ROC
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION
HEARING: January 19, 2023
APPEARANCES: Complainant Alan Ralph appeared on his own behalf. Justin Leckie, Owner and Qualifying Party, appeared on behalf of Respondent Leckie Investments LLC.
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Tammy L. Eigenheer
_____________________________________________________________________
FINDINGS OF FACT
Leckie Investiments LLC (Respondent) is the holder of License No. 325010 issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (Registrar).
On or about May 17, 2022, Alan Ralph (Complainant) entered into a contract with Respondent for an addition to an existing structure.
On or about June 8, 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 October 24, 2022.
. . . .
DIRECTIVE REQUIREMENTS
You are directed to remedy the following violations by the appropriate means:
Complaint #1 Entire roof was demolished due to negligent contractors not reading plans. Work was not authorized. Construction crew caused fire on front bedroom while they were negligently removing the roof that was unapproved.
Inspector’s Observation: The home is in the demo process which is not completed.
• Respondent shall complete project per original contract agreement, plans, specifications, properly executed change orders, verbal agreements, local building codes and manufacturer’s installation instructions.
Following the issuance of the written directive, Respondent did not contact Complainant to perform any corrective work. After the deadline in the directive expired, Investigator Klein was notified no corrective work had been performed.
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(A); and A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22).
Investigator Klein testified as to his observations during the jobsite inspection.
Complainant testified that during the first day of the project, a fire occurred and Respondent failed to inform Complainant. Complainant stated that the project was red tagged by the city and work had to stop on the project. Before work could restart, the plans had to be resubmitted and approved by the city. Complainant denied receiving any contact from Respondent after the directive was issued and before the deadline expired.
Mr. Leckie testified that Complainant was pressing him to begin work on the project as soon as possible. Although the parties had agreed to the price and Respondent required a deposit, work began prior to a payment being made. Mr. Leckie acknowledged that there was a fire on the property, but maintained it was in a section of the house that was going to be demolished anyway. Mr. Leckie stated Respondent had not been paid anything on the project. Mr. Leckie was unaware if any attempts to contact Complainant were made after the written directive was issued and prior to the deadline in the directive expiring.
Derek Stana, an employee of Respondent, testified that no attempts to contact Complainant were made after the written directive was issued and prior to the deadline in the directive expiring.
Administrative notice is taken of Respondent’s prior License record on February 8, 2023. Such prior License record reflects that Respondent’s License No. 325010 was first issued on June 28, 2019, and is 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.
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(A).
The evidence established that Respondent did not attempt to 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. 325010 for a period of one day.
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.
Pursuant to A.R.S. § 41-1092.08(I), the licensee may accept the Administrative Law Judge Decision by advising the Office of Administrative Hearings in writing not more than ten (10) days after receiving the decision. If the licensee accepts the Administrative Law Judge Decision, the decision shall be certified as the final decision by the Office of Administrative Hearings.
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 forty (40) days from the date of that certification.
Done this day, February 8, 2023.
/s/ Tammy L. Eigenheer
Administrative Law Judge
Transmitted electronically to:
Martín Quezada, Director
Registrar of Contractors
Leckie Investments LLC
[email redacted]
Alan Ralph
[email redacted]
Steve Klein
[email redacted]
By: OAH Staff