ALJDEC - Licensing
2022A-07988-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2023-03-30
IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
Rosanna Lee Rajah,
COMPLAINANT
v.
Castle Marketing Inc.
DBA: Castle Floors
License No. ROC 135975,
RESPONDENT
No. 2022A-07988-CHC-ROC
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION
HEARING: March 10, 2023
APPEARANCES: Complainant Rosanna Lee Rajah appeared on her own behalf. Dean Merrell, Owner and Qualifying Party, appeared on behalf Respondent Castle Marketing Inc. doing business as Castle Floors
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Tammy L. Eigenheer
_____________________________________________________________________
FINDINGS OF FACT
Castle Marketing Inc. doing business as Castle Floors (Respondent) is the holder of License No. 135975 issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (Registrar).
On or about May 2, 2022, Rosanna Lee Rajah (Complainant) entered into a contract with Respondent for, among other things, the installation of new vinyl flooring.
On or about September 14, 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 Jason Simpson. After a jobsite inspection, Investigator Simpson 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 November 18, 2022.
. . . .
DIRECTIVE REQUIREMENTS
You are directed to remedy the following violations by the appropriate means:
Complaint Item 2: “Staircase end planks were not made to size and our stairs were out of spec, so they put small pieces at the end of some steps that look terrible;”
Investigator’s Observation: This allegation is verified as the responsibility of the respondent. I observed cut filled in pieces of wood on the sides of the steps heading up from the landing. The Respondent should makes necessary repairs/replace steps for proper length installation.
Governing Rule: A.R.S. § 32-1154 (A)(3) - R4-9-108(a): 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 3: “Stair vinyls planks on first stair case are full pieces and the second set are staggered so they are no uniform” planks in first landing full uniformed pieces, 2nd floor not matching pattern. Respondent should make necessary repairs/replace for stairs to match as close as possible.
Governing Rule: A.R.S. § 32-1154 (A)(3) - R4-9-108(a): 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: “Master bath baseboards need to be caulked”
Investigator’s Observation: This allegation is verified as the responsibility of the respondent. The Respondent is responsible for making the necessary repairs one time within the first year. Then becomes the responsibility of the home owner for further maintenance.
Governing Rule: A.R.S. § 32-1154 (A)(3) - R4-9-108(a): 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 8: “An area near the original kitchen island was not sanded at all and a plank was laid over it with a big bump you can visually see”
Investigator’s Observation: This allegation is verified as the responsibility of the respondent. I observed a hump in floor near Kitchen Island. Respondent should make the necessary repairs.
Governing Rule: A.R.S. § 32-1154 (A)(3) - R4-9-108(a): 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
Following the issuance of the written directive, Respondent did not perform any corrective work. After the deadline in the directive expired, Investigator Simpson 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).
Investigator Simpson testified as to his observations of the project during the jobsite inspection. Specifically, Investigator Simpson stated that with respect to Complaint Item 1, “Vinyl floors have warping throughout the house due to the thin set that was poured in various areas of the house incorrectly”, all the flooring was within the Registrar’s standards.
Complainant testified that she believed Complaint Item 1 should have been substantiated and provided photographs of the project to demonstrate issues with the flooring warping.
Mr. Merrell testified that Respondent was willing to correct the issue on the stairs, but acknowledged it had failed to do so after the written directive was issued. Mr. Merrell admitted Respondent did not contact Complainant until after the deadline in the directive expired.
Administrative notice is taken of Respondent’s prior License record on March 30, 2023. Such prior License record reflects that Respondent’s License No. 135975 was first issued on Fune 9, 1998, 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 as outlined in the written directive. While Complainant had additional concerns with the flooring, those items were not substantiated by Investigator Simpson and the Administrative Law Judge cannot conclude that the work was not in compliance 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).
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. 135975 for a period of three days.
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 30, 2023.
/s/ Tammy L. Eigenheer
Administrative Law Judge
Transmitted by either mail, e-mail, or facsimile to:
Martín Quezada, Director
Registrar of Contractors
Rosanna Lee Rajah
[email redacted]
Jason Simpson
[email redacted]
Castle Marketing Inc
DBA: Castle Floors
[email redacted]
By: OAH Staff