ALJDEC - Licensing

2022A-09434-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2023-04-07

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

Anna Arneson,

COMPLAINANT

v.

Central Arizona Builders LLC

License No. ROC 300550,

RESPONDENT

No. 2022A-09434-CHC-ROC

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION

HEARING: March 22, 2023

APPEARANCES: Complainant Anna Arneson appeared via Google Meet on her own behalf. Michael Pareja appeared via Google Meet for Respondent Central Arizona Builders LLC.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Adam D. Stone

_____________________________________________________________________

FINDINGS OF FACT

Central Arizona Builders LLC (Respondent) is the holder of License No. 300550 issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (Registrar).

On or about January 26, 2022, Anna Arneson (Complainant) agreed to have Respondent install outside decking. The total cost was to be $33,561.00. To date, Complainant has paid $31,000.00.

The Registrar received a Complaint containing four items against Respondent from Complainant alleging poor work with respect to project.

The Registrar assigned the complaint to Investigator Jim Dimond. The jobsite inspection was performed on November 7, 2023.

Investigator Dimond then issued a written directive on or about December 19, 2022, 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 January 6, 2023.

. . .

DIRECTIVE REQUIREMENTS

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

Complaint Item: 1 - BULGE IN DECK

Investigator’s Observation: Just passed the upper room footprint, there is a section of decking that is bulge upward.

This is likely due to the joists not being installed at the same heights.

The respondent is to correct the condition in an appropriate manner.

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.

Complaint Item: 2 - NO STAIR RAIL

Investigator’s Observation: At the south end of the deck there is a set of stairs down to the ground level. Handrail is required and is not installed.

The respondent is to correct the condition in an appropriate manner.

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.

Complaint Item: 4 - ROOM ABOVE DECK HAD TO BE JACKED UP AND THE FLOOR IS MESSED UP

Investigator’s Observation: New posts were installed under this upper sun room.

As a result of manipulating the room, some cracking occurred in the drywall and the flooring elevation compared to the baseboards changed some.

There is a slight gap at the baseboard in the room that should be sealed.

The respondent is to correct the conditions in an appropriate manner.

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.

(All errors contained in the original).

On January 13, 2023, the Registrar issued a Citation against Respondent, charging possible violations of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(1); A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(a); and A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22).

On or about January 27, 2023, Respondent e-mailed an Answer to the Registrar.

On or about February 14, 2023, a Notice of Hearing was issued setting a hearing on March 22, 2023, at the Office of Administrative Hearings, an independent state agency.

At hearing, Complainant testified that work started in June 2022, and wanted the decking installed so she could install the siding on her home. Complainant testified that most of the decking was completed, however, Respondent never completed the work.

Complainant testified further that she was finally able to contact Mr. Pareja and he informed her that he had been “super sick” and was on a ventilator. Complainant also testified that she then checked the Registrar’s website and found that Respondent’s license was suspended.

Mr. Pareja testified that he was sorry for the inability to fix and finish the deck.

Further, Mr. Pareja testified that he was suffering from bulging discs in his C3 and C4. In the middle of the project he lost feeling his arms but is now recovering and getting some feeling back.

Finally, Mr. Pareja testified that he still wanted to help Complainant at least get in touch with other contractors and will look into resolving his license suspensions.

Administrative notice was taken of Respondent’s prior License record on April 7, 2021. Such prior License record reflected that Respondent’s License No. 300550 was first issued on August 10, 2015, and was suspended for five days on August 10, 2022. The record also reflected that he was suspended on February 23, 2023 in case 2023-00568.

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 preponderance of the evidence established, and Respondent admitted, that he abandoned the project in violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(1).

The preponderance of the evidence established that Respondent’s work was not in conformity with the Registrar’s standards. There was a bulge in the deck, the stair rail was not installed, and there was damage to the floor in the room above the deck. 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 Respondent failed to complete the corrective work following the Directive being issued. While it was certainly understandable the Mr. Pareja’s communication would be limited during the periods when he was ill, he still could have and should have had his workers finish the project. Also, while it is understandable that he could not perform the work while his license was suspended, that was only for five days in August/September and again could have resolved the matter thereafter. 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. 300550 for a period of five days.

It is further recommended that the Registrar require Respondent to pay the sum of $300.00 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, April 7, 2023.

/s/ Adam D. Stone

Administrative Law Judge

Transmitted by either mail, e-mail, or facsimile to:

Martín Quezada, Director

Registrar of Contractors

Central Arizona Builders LLC

[email redacted]

Anna Arneson

[email redacted]

By: OAH Staff