ALJDEC- Licensing

2022A-10140-NPC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2023-02-27

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

DDJD Enterprises LLC,

COMPLAINANT

v.

COE RENOVATION LLC

License No. ROC 317313,

RESPONDENT

No. 2022A-10140-NPC-ROC

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION

HEARING: February 7, 2023

APPEARANCES: Dona Dolezal, Co-Owner, and Jeremy Dolezal, Co-Owner and Qualifying Party, appeared on behalf of Complainant DDJD Enterprises LLC. James Leonard, Managing Member and Qualifying Party, appeared on behalf of Respondent COE RENOVATION LLC.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Tammy L. Eigenheer

_____________________________________________________________________

FINDINGS OF FACT

COE RENOVATION LLC (Respondent) is the holder of License No. 317313 issued by the Registrar of Contractors (Registrar).

On or about November 7, 2022, DDJD Enterprises LLC (Complainant) filed a Complaint against Respondent with the Registrar alleging that Respondent had failed to pay Complainant the sum of $6,125.00 for electrical work provided.

The parties were unable to resolve their differences, and Complainant requested an administrative hearing. The Registrar then issued a Citation for Alleged Violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(10).

Mr. Dolezal testified that the total due to Complainant was $6,125.00. Mr. Dolezal stated that Complainant was asked to perform work on Respondent’s project because the existing subcontractor had performed poorly. Mr. Dolezal stated that the parties did not enter into a written contract as Complainant was called in to perform repairs to get a green tag on the project.

Ms. Dolezal testified the contract was entirely verbal. Ms. Dolezal indicated Complainant was told they needed to fill out a packet for Respondent, but they never received the packet. Ms. Dolezal denied knowing Respondent had a “pay when paid” policy.

Mr. Leonard testified that the agreement with Complainant was a fast track project involving a sense of urgency because the original electrician did not have the skills to complete the project. Mr. Leonard asked Complainant to inspect the project to point out the deficiencies and ultimately hired Complainant to perform the repairs. Mr. Leonard did not dispute Complainant was owed $6,125.00 on the project, but asserted that the project owner had failed to pay Respondent approximately $250,000.00 on the project at issue. Respondent filed a lien on the project, but had not received payment as of the date of the hearing. Mr. Leonard stated the overall cost of three project Respondent did for the project owner were in excess of $3,000,000.00 and Respondent had been paid approximately $3,000,000.00 in total.

Respondent did not assert that it lacked the capacity to pay the amount Complainant asserted was due.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

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).

A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(10) includes among the grounds for suspension, revocation, or other disciplinary action against a contractor’s license,

[f]ailure by a licensee or agent or official of a licensee to pay monies in excess of $750 when due for materials or services rendered in connection with the licensee's operations as a contractor unless the licensee proves that the licensee lacks the capacity to pay and has not received sufficient monies as payment for the particular construction work project or operation for which the services or materials were rendered or purchased.

The evidence established that Respondent owed a total of $6,125.00 for services provided.

Respondent failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that it lacked the ability to pay Complainant for the work performed.

Therefore, Complainant established that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(10) by failing to pay Complainant $6,125.00 for services or materials rendered in connection with Respondent’s contracting business.

Based upon Respondent’s violation of the provisions of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(10), grounds exist to impose discipline against Respondent’s license

RECOMMENDed order

Based on the foregoing, it is recommended that the Registrar suspend Respondent’s License No: 317313 issued by the Registrar until it has provided to the Registrar, and the Registrar has accepted, documents that establish that it has paid Complainant $6,125.00 in certified funds.

It is further recommended that when and if the Registrar receives and accepts Respondent’s evidence that it has paid Complainant $6,125.00 in certified funds, the Registrar may close the Complaint in Case No. 2022-10140.

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, February 27, 2023.

/s/ Tammy L. Eigenheer

Administrative Law Judge

Transmitted electronically to:

Martín Quezada, Director

Registrar of Contractors

COE RENOVATION LLC

[email redacted]

DDJD Enterprises LLC

[email redacted]

By: OAH Staff