ALJDEC - Licensing

2022A-07069-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2023-03-20

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

Randall Limbach,

COMPLAINANT

v.

High Desert Woodcraft LLC

License No. ROC 320624,

RESPONDENT

No. 2022A-07069-CHC-ROC

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION

HEARING: February 1, 2023

APPEARANCES: Complainant Randall Limbach appeared on his own behalf. Daniel Munsey, Owner and Qualifying Party, and Tyler Dodd, Owner, appeared on behalf of Respondent High Desert Woodcraft LLC.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Tammy L. Eigenheer

_____________________________________________________________________

FINDINGS OF FACT

High Desert Woodcraft LLC (Respondent) is the holder of License No. 320624 issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (Registrar).

On or about November 5, 2019, Randall Limbach (Complainant) entered into a contract with Respondent for a remodeling project including new cabinets.

On or about August 22, 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 Michael Springer. After a jobsite inspection, Investigator Springer 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 20th, 2022.

. . . .

DIRECTIVE REQUIREMENTS

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

Compliance Item: 1 - Kitchen cabinets are of three shades of grey, rather than the agreed-upon single color.

Investigator’s Observation: Complainant states after original installation of cabinets, doors were damaged and removed for repainting. Doors were taken away and repainted. Doors do not match each other. Doors are also darker than cabinet bases. Crown molding was installed last and painted on site with another batch of paint and are lighter than the bases. Complainant states he would be ok with all doors matching and leave bases as is.

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.

Following the issuance of the written directive, Respondent attempted to perform the required repairs. The deadline for compliance was extended.

After the extended deadline in the directive expired, Investigator Springer was notified the corrective work had been completed.

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 Springer testified that the cabinets at issue were differed shades of gray. Investigator Springer noted that during a prehearing inspection on January 19, 2023, the cabinets were still different colors.

Complainant testified that he believed the only way to correct the color issue was to remove all of them and repaint them. Complainant stated he was attempting to work with Respondent to find a solution, but each time they repainted the doors to correct some of the issues, they were a different shade from the boxes.

Daniel Munsey testified that new employees had worked on Complainant’s project, which resulted in dings and scratches. At one point, Respondent took the doors back and applied a clear coat at Complainant’s request, which Mr. Munsey believed to be part of the issue. Mr. Munsey acknowledged that the cabinets still included different shades of gray. Mr. Munsey asserted that Respondent always ordered the same color of paint from Home Depot, but each order was a slightly different shade.

Tyler Dodd also testified that Respondent ordered the same color of paint from Home Depot each time, but it would come back different every time.

Administrative notice is taken of Respondent’s prior License record on March 20, 2023. Such prior License record reflects that Respondent’s License No. 320624 was first issued on July 3, 2018, 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 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. 320624 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.

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, March 20, 2023.

/s/ Tammy L. Eigenheer

Administrative Law Judge

Transmitted electronically to:

Martín Quezada, Director

Registrar of Contractors

High Desert Woodcraft LLC

[email redacted]

Mike Springer

[email redacted]

Randall Limbach

[email redacted]

By: OAH Staff