ALJDEC - Licensing
2022A-08018-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2023-02-15
IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
Curtis Francis Crawford ,
COMPLAINANT
v.
Jet Installations L.L.C.
License No. ROC 331543,
RESPONDENT
No. 2022A-08018-CHC-ROC
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION
HEARING: January 20, 2023
APPEARANCES: Curtis and Cindy Crawford (Complainants) appeared representing themselves. ROC Investigator Steve Klein appeared. No person on behalf of Respondent Jet Installations LLC appeared.
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Kay A. Abramsohn
_____________________________________________________________________
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. On August 1, 2021, Jet Installations LLC (Jet) and Complainant Curtis and Francis Crawford entered into a contract wherein Jet would install a solar panel system at Complainant’s home, for the amount of $35,621.67.
2. Through the Tucson Old Pueblo Credit Union (TOPCU), Complainant executed a loan agreement and, as a result, TOPCU paid out $31,992.00 to Jet Solar LLC.
3. While Jet’s representative did come to the home and photographed the electrical box, the project did not get underway. At some point, Complainant discovered that Jet did file its work application with APS with only 4 of the 7 requisite criteria and that, essentially, the 150 day time period for the application had run out. At some point, Complainant contacted Jet which indicated to Complainant that 100% of the monies would be returned.
4. In April 2022, Complainant went to Jet offices in Tempe in April 2002 where a representative of Jet told them Jet would get started on the project. Multiple efforts were made by Complainant to again contact Jet about the work; however, calls to Jet were not returned. Jet never began any work at Complainant’s home.
5. On or about September 2022, Complainant filed the complaint with the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (ROC) alleging abandonment by Jet.
6. On October 18, 2022, ROC Investigator Steve Klein conducted a job-site inspection. Jet did not appear at the job-site inspection.
7. On October 19, 2022, the ROC issued a Directive to Jet. 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 November 9, 2022.
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 reasons1, 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:
Complaint Item #1: Abandonment
Investigator’s Observation: The Complainant paid a deposit on or about August 12, 2021 and the job has not started.
Respondent shall complete project per original contract agreement, plans, specifications, properly executed change orders, local building codes and manufacturers installation instructions.
8. On November 9, 2022, Complainant advised Mr. Klein that Jet had not contacted them in any way regarding the Directive. Mr. Klein issued his November 10, 2022 Directive Compliance document and forwarded the matter to ROC Legal for administrative hearing.
9. On November 14, 2022, the ROC issued a Citation against Jet’s License ROC 331543 for alleged violations of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(1) and, therewith, Arizona Administrative Code R4-9-108(a), as well as, therewith, A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22).
10. Christopher Gonzalez emailed Mr. Klein on November 16, 2022, noting that Lerrill Jones was the owner of Jet and Mr. Gonzalez had only represented Jones/Jet as a Qualifying Party (QP). Mr. Gonzalez indicated that he had since disassociated from Jones/Jet both as QP and a member. In his email to Mr. Klein, Mr. Gonzalez stated that he “cannot and will not clean up Lerrill Jones company or personal messes.”
11. The matter was referred to the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) for an evidentiary hearing. On December 9, 2022, the ROC issued its Notice of Hearing setting the matter for administrative hearing on January 23, 2023. On January 11, 2023, the Tribunal issued its ORDER setting the matter for a virtual hearing, providing the virtual link as well as a telephone number to access the virtual hearing.
12. Although the hearing did not start until after 1:15 p.m., no one appeared on behalf of Jet through an authorized member, officer, employee, or attorney, and no one contact the OAH to request that the start of the hearing be further delayed. Consequently, Jet did not present any evidence to defend its license.
13. Administrative notice is taken of Respondent’s License record with the ROC which, as of the date of this recommended decision, reflects that there are 2 open cases, but that, as of December 6, 2022, Respondent’s License had been revoked with multiple revocations thereafter.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
This matter lies within the Registrar’s jurisdiction. See A.R.S. § 32-
1154(A).
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 preponderance of the evidence shows that Jet did not perform any work and, thus, abandoned the project which is a violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(1) and A.A.C. R4-9-108(a).
5. The preponderance of the evidence shows that Jet failed to
complete the project by November 9, 2022, which is a violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22).
6. The Administrative Law Judge concludes that the Investigator-determined abandonment issue is accurate and, thus, Respondent is in violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(1), specifically A.A.C. R4-9-108 for failure to perform all work in a professional and workmanlike manner, and in violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22) for failure to take appropriate corrective action to comply with the Directive by the Directive deadline.
RECOMMENDed order
In view of the foregoing, the Administrative Law Judge recommends that the Registrar impose discipline of revocation on Respondent’s ROC License 331543.
Pursuant to A.R.S. § 41-1092.08(I), the licensee may accept the Administrative Law Judge's written decision by so advising the Office of Administrative Hearings in writing not more than ten days after receiving the decision. If the licensee accepts the Administrative Law Judge's written decision, that Administrative Law Judge Decision shall be certified as the final decision in this matter 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 five (5) days after the date of that certification.
Recommended this day, February 15, 2023.
/s/ Kay A. Abramsohn
Administrative Law Judge
Transmitted electronically to:
Martín Quezada, Registrar
Registrar of Contractors
[email redacted]
Christopher Gonzalez
[email redacted]
[email redacted]
Curtis Francis Crawford
[email redacted]
Jet Installations L.L.C.
[email redacted]
By: OAH Staff