ALJDEC - Licensing
2022A-09090-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2023-05-12
IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
Julie Riley,
COMPLAINANT,
v.
Native Interiors, LLC
License No. ROC 313434,
RESPONDENT.
No. 2022A-09090-CHC-ROC
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION
HEARING: May 1, 2023
APPEARANCES: Complainant Julie Riley appeared on her own behalf. Respondent Native Interiors, LLC failed to appear. Arizona Registrar of Contractors Investigator Albert Bernal appeared as a witness.
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Sondra J. Vanella
FINDINGS OF FACT
Native Interiors, LLC (“Respondent”) is the holder of License Number 313434 issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (“Registrar”).
On or about August 31, 2021, Julie Riley (“Complainant”) contracted with Respondent for Respondent to remove the existing flooring and install luxury vinyl plank flooring throughout her home, with the exception of the three upstairs bedrooms. The contract price was $19,841.02 and Complainant paid Respondent in full.
On or about October 7, 2022, the Registrar received a Complaint against Respondent from Complainant alleging abandonment and poor work with respect to the project.
The Registrar assigned the Complaint to Investigator Albert Bernal. After a November 9, 2022 Jobsite Inspection at which both parties were present, Investigator Bernal issued a Written Directive to Respondent on December 19, 2022, 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 January 13, 2023.
You are directed to remedy the following violations by the appropriate means:
Compliance Item: - 1) Flooring throughout main floor hall is lifting/ buckling due to improper install as determined by materials manufacturer.;
Investigator’s Observation: I was shown several planks on the hallway Kitchen area that were marked with blue tape. I noted raise edges were present on the end joints and longitudinal joints on random planks in the area.
Compliance Item: - 2) Flooring on main floor dining room is lifting/buckling at seams due to improper install as determined by materials manufacturer.
Investigator’s Observation: I was shown several planks on the dining room area that were marked with blue tape. I noted raise edges were present on the end joints and longitudinal joints on random planks in the area.
Compliance Item: -3) flooring in kitchen is lifting/buckling at seams due to
improper install as determined by materials manufacturer.
Investigator’s Observation: I was shown several planks on kitchen area that were marked with blue / green tape. I noted separations gaps exceeding 3/16” in width at the end joins on random planks in the area. Respondent closed the gap by stepping on the planks and moving his foot forward. Expansion and contraction (movement) is expected on this types of floors, however, the gaps observed in this area were excessive. It was also shown to me a piece of flooring against / under the kitchen island that had a separation gap on the longitudinal joint.
Compliance Item: - 4) Flooring on main floor in front of Arcadia doors are lifting/buckling at seams due to improper install as determined by materials
manufacturer.
Investigator’s Observation: I was shown several planks on the hallway/ arcadia door area that were marked with blue tape. I noted raise edges were present on the end joints and longitudinal joints on random planks in the area.
Compliance Item: - 11) Caulking on stairs does not meet workmanship standards and looks uneven and is in one place separating from stair leaving a 1/2 inch gap between caulking and stairs.
Investigator’s Observation: I noted caulking residue on the stairs landing.
Caulking residue shall be removed from form the surface of the stairs landing.
Compliance Item: - 12) General lifting / buckling throughout residence as trim work was installed directly on top of flooring against manufacturers printed instruction.
Investigator’s Observation: I noted that various areas throughout the residence floor where the base board did not have a space of about 1/16” between the SPC floor and the base board as illustrated and instructed in the SPC Flooring Installation Instructions.
Respondent shall identify these areas and complete project per manufacturer’s installation instructions
ITEMS NOT REQUIRING CORRECTION
The following complaint items require no action by the Respondent:
Compliance Item: - 5) Flooring on 2nd floor hallway is lifting/buckling at seams due to improper install as determined by materials manufacturer.;
Investigator’s Observation: I noted that flooring installed in this area (Hallway) had minimum up and down movement. When pushed down on floor planks the floor moved as a whole. This is a floating – click application floor, so some movement is normal and expected. No issues were noted in this area.
Compliance Item: - 6) Flooring on 2nd floor primary ensuite is lifting/buckling at seams due to improper install as determined by materials manufacturer.;
Investigator’s Observation: I noted that flooring installed in this area (Master bathroom) had minimum up and down movement. When pushed down on floor planks the floor moved as a whole. This is a floating – click application floor, so some movement is normal and expected. No issues were noted in this area.
Compliance Item: -7) Trim work rounded corners were not properly wood filled/caulked throughout residence leaving them looking uneven and pieced together.
Investigator’s Observation: I noted several pieces of round trim corner were not completely flush with the baseboard. Most of the pieces shown to me were sticking out less than 1/16” and there were no gaps noted in between the baseboard and the round trim corners. No action required by the Respondent.
Compliance Item: -8) Existing door trim was caulked to newly installed flooring against manufacturer’s instructions.
Investigator’s Observation: I was shown a section were caulked was used in between the floor and the door trim. Caulking appeared to be separated from the surfaces and both sides of the door. No issues were noted in this area.
Compliance Item: - 9) Flooring in bedroom on main level is not finished (no quarter round or trim work) edges of flooring left exposed, original trim work was removed by installers.
Investigator’s Observation: Area in the complaint item was never shown to me by the Complainant at this investigation.
Compliance Item: - 10) Door stops removed by contractors/ disposed of were not replaced or saved leaving no door stops throughout.
Investigator’s Observation: Areas in this complaint item were never shown to me by the Complainant at this investigation.
All errors in original.
After the expiration of the Written Directive, Investigator Bernal ascertained that Respondent did not perform any corrective work. Consequently, a Compliance Inspection was not conducted.
Thereafter, Investigator Bernal forwarded the matter to the Registrar’s Legal Department. 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).
The Registrar referred the matter to the Office of Administrative Hearings, an independent State agency, for an evidentiary hearing.
The hearing was scheduled to convene on May 1, 2023, at 1:00 p.m. On the date and at the time set for hearing, Complainant appeared on her own behalf. Investigator Bernal was present. Respondent did not appear through an authorized member, employee, or attorney, notwithstanding proper notice of the hearing. Respondent did not request that the hearing be continued. Because Respondent failed to appear, Respondent did not present any evidence to defend its license.
Investigator Bernal testified consistently with his findings contained in the Written Directive and the Jobsite Inspection Notes.
Complainant testified that Respondent began its work on September 20, 2021, and completed its work on September 25, 2021. Complainant testified that she attempted to contact Respondent on multiple occasions to express her concerns with the workmanship, however, after July 6, 2022, Respondent ceased communications with Complainant.
Complainant testified that on August 30, 2022, a Building Confidence Inspection was conducted by Investigator Wes Ellington, and that thereafter, Respondent did not return to the property to perform any work. Complainant waited until October 7, 2022, to file the instant Complaint and did not hear from Respondent after the issuance of the Written Directive.
Complainant testified that she agreed with Investigator Bernal’s findings and testimony.
Administrative notice is taken of Respondent’s prior License record on May 10, 2023. Such prior License record reflects that Respondent’s License No. 313434 was first issued on May 18, 2017, and is active. Such prior License record also reflects that there is only the instant open complaint, one resolved/settled complaint, and no discipline against Respondent’s license.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
This matter lies within the Registrar’s jurisdiction.
Complainant bears the burden of proof to establish Respondent’s statutory violations by a preponderance of the evidence. “A preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.”
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 Written Directive being issued, and that no valid justification for such failure existed. 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 Number 313434 for a period of seven (7) 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 (30) 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 12, 2023.
/s/ Sondra J. Vanella
Administrative Law Judge
Transmitted by either mail, e-mail, or facsimile to:
Martín Quezada, Director
Registrar of Contractors
[email redacted]
Julie Riley
[email redacted]
Native Interiors, LLC
[email redacted]
Albert Bernal
[email redacted]
By: OAH Staff