ALJDEC - Licensing
2022A-06025-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2023-05-15
IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
Nathan Richert Woods
COMPLAINANT,
v.
C & J Renovations LLC
DBA: HDK Landscape & Design
License No. ROC 324811,
RESPONDENT.
No. 2022A-06025-CHC-ROC
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION
HEARING: April 26, 2023
APPEARANCES: Complainant Nathan Richert Woods appeared on behalf of himself. James Khan appeared on behalf of Respondent C & J Renovations, LLC DBA: HDK Landscape & Design.
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Velva Moses-Thompson
_____________________________________________________________________
FINDINGS OF FACT
On March 23, 2023, the Registrar of Contractors (ROC),
issued a Notice of Hearing setting the above-captioned matter for hearing on April 26, 2023, by the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) in Phoenix, Arizona.
2. Respondent C & J Renovations LLC, DBA: HDK Landscape & Design (Respondent) holds license number 324811 issued by the ROC.
3. James Khan is Respondent’s qualifying party.
4. The Notice of Hearing shows that the hearing was set to consider the
charges made in the Citation and Complaint. Through the Citation, the ROC alleges that Respondent may have violated Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) sections 32- 1154(A)(3)(specifically, Arizona Administrative Code (A.A.C.) section R4-9-108(A); A.R.S. section 32-1154(A)(22).
5. The Citation shows that if the Administrative Law Judge finds that the alleged charges are valid, the Registrar may suspend or revoke Respondent’s license.
6. On or about April 22, 2021, Complainant and Respondent entered into a residential construction contract wherein Respondent would install a drip system, new pavers and remove existing concrete at Complainant’s home.
7. At some time between May 2021 and July 2021, Respondent began work. 8. On or about January 8, 2022, Respondent stopped work.
9. On or about January 21, 2022, Complainant filed a complaint with the ROC alleging poor workmanship on the part of Respondent.
10. The ROC assigned the complaint to Investigator Steve Avila.
11. Investigator Avila was subsequently notified of pending financial agreements between the parties.
12. On or about November 22, 2022, ROC Investigator Avila conducted a job-site inspection.
13. On January 20, 2023, the ROC issued a Directive to Respondent. The Directive provided, in relevant part, 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 February 6, 2023.
RESTRICTIONS
You may not perform or hire other contractors to perform work that is outside the scope of your license.
If your license is currently suspended for administrative reasons, or is inactive, expired, or cancelled, you may not perform any corrective work nor contract in any manner, which includes hiring other contractors to perform work, until the suspension of your license(s) has been lifted or your license(s) has been reactivated.
DIRECTIVE REQUIREMENTS
You are directed to remedy the following violations by the appropriate means:
Compliance Item: 1 - James agreed to fix errors, then told me he was going out of business. Area around pool is elevated and never leveled back out as promised. Water pools on pavers, was told it would drain to side yard. Pavers by pool equipment was is unlevel and there is not enough drainage. Pavers around poles are not cut to fit in properly. New drip system for grass effects pavers that were installed. James reviewed and inspected his crews work in January and agreed all needed to be corrected, month after he stated that he is no longer in business.
Investigator’s Observation: At the time of the inspection there was flood test performed. Flood test confirmed that pooling water was in excess of the 3/32 acceptable workmanship standard. Standards state - Water should drain. Standing water exceeding 3/32” is unacceptable. It was also noted that at the time of the inspection the water that was able to reach the area adjacent to the pool equipment is suffering from ponding water created by the installation of pavers and the addition of soil in the area between pavers and gate leading to the backyard. Workmanship standards state - Pavers should not interfere with drainage. Pavers around the poles contain irregular cuts in an attempt to surround the poles. The result is a number of different gap sizes between the pole and the surrounding pavers. Workmanship standards state - Excessive deviations, dips or sags over short distances are considered unacceptable. The final location in which the complainant stated was affected by drip system did in fact appear to settle. However the investigator is unable to determine if the affected area is due to the workmanship of the respondent or is affected by the irrigation. All other allegations besides area near the drip system have been verified. Respondent shall correct by the appropriate means.
Governing Rule: Violation of any rule adopted by the Registrar; Namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(a): A contractor shall perform all work in a professional and workmanlike manner. Please direct all questions regarding this Directive to the undersigned Investigator.
14. Respondent did not correct the items listed in the Directive by the due date of February 6, 2023.
15. On February 21, 2023, the ROC issued a Citation against Respondent’s license for alleged violations of Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) 32-1154(A)(3) and (22); Arizona Administrative Code (A.A.C.) R4-9-108(a).
16. Respondent filed a timely answer to the Citation.
17. The matter was referred to the Office of Administrative Hearings for an evidentiary hearing.
18. A hearing was held on April 26, 2023.
19. At hearing, Complainant testified on behalf of himself. Mr. Khan testified
on behalf of Respondent. Investigator Avila testified regarding his job site inspections and issuance of the Directive.
20. Complainant explained that Respondent performed poor work on his home. Complainant had made repairs to Respondent’s deficient work. In January of 2022, Mr. Khan observed the project and stated that the work did not look good or acceptable. Complainant stated that in August of 2022, he arranged to have his pool serviced. However, there were no changes made to Respondent’s work. The pool servicing company addressed pool pop-offs and excessive sand. Complainant requested that Respondent pay him $1,000 for the repair work. However, Respondent would only agree to a payment plan.
21. Mr. Khan stated at hearing that Complainant was not “100% wrong” in his allegations of poor work. Ms. Khan stated that Respondent suffered grave issues around of Complainant’s project. Mr. Khan stated that Respondent made multiple trips to Complainant’s home to make repairs, however, Complainant would ask Respondent’s workers to make changes or perform new work. Mr. Khan believed that Complainant would never be satisfied with Respondent’s work. Mr. Khan explained that consequently, Respondent agreed to pay Complainant $1,000 to make the repairs desired by Complainant. Mr. Khan stated that another contract performed work on the pavers prior to Respondent. Mr. Khan stated that he was not disputing the allegations. Mr. Khan stated that he would give Respondent $1,000 if he had it. However, Mr. Khan stated that he would have to arrange a payment plan that would “work” for him and his family.
22. Administrative notice is taken of the Registrar’s public website on May 15, 2023. According to the information available on the website, Respondent’s license was first issued on June 17, 2019, and is active. Such prior License record also shows that there is only one open complaint against Respondent. Such prior License record also shows that one complaint has resulted in discipline against Respondent’s license.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
This matter lies within the ROC’s jurisdiction. See A.R.S. § 32-1101 et seq.
The burden of proof at an administrative hearing falls to the party asserting a claim, right, or entitlement and the standard of proof on all issues in these matters is by a preponderance of the evidence. See A.A.C. R2-19-119.
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).
4. The Administrative Law Judge may consider the ROC’s administrative record. See A.A.C. R9-9-118.
5. The preponderance of the evidence shows that Respondent did not perform the work in a professional and workmanlike manner, which is a violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(b).
6. The preponderance of the evidence shows that Respondent failed to
correct the items listed in the ROC’s Directive without valid justification, which is a 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 ROC shall suspend Respondent C & J Renovations LLC DBA: HDK Landscape & Design, LLC’s license number 324811 for 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)(7), 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, May 15, 2023.
/s/ Velva Moses-Thompson
Administrative Law Judge
Transmitted by either mail, e-mail, or facsimile to:
Martín Quezada, Director
Registrar of Contractors
[email redacted]
C & J Renovations LLC
DBA: HDK Landscape & Design
[email redacted]
Nathan Richert Woods
[email redacted]
Steven Avila
[email redacted]
By: OAH Staff