ALJDEC - Licensing

2022A-10551-NPC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2023-03-06

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

SFA Contracting LLC,

COMPLAINANT

v.

G 2 Contracting LLC

License No. ROC 248715,

RESPONDENT

No. 2022A-10551-NPC-ROC

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION

HEARING: February 15, 2023

APPEARANCES: Nick Carolan, President and Qualifying Party, appeared on behalf of Complainant SFA Contracting LLC. Sally Bach, Owner and Qualifying Party, appeared on behalf of Respondent G 2 Contracting LLC, which was represented by Blythe Edmondson.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Tammy L. Eigenheer

_____________________________________________________________________

FINDINGS OF FACT

G 2 Contracting LLC (Respondent) is the holder of License No. 248715 issued by the Registrar of Contractors (Registrar).

On or about November 15, 2022, SFA Contracting LLC (Complainant) filed a Complaint against Respondent with the Registrar alleging that Respondent had failed to pay Complainant the sum of $24,418.50 for work performed.

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. Carolan testified that Complainant had seven separate projects with Respondent, four of which had a balance owing. Mr. Carolan stated that the total due to Complainant was $24,418.50. Mr. Carolan indicated he had been told that these jobs were emergency situations because the school was experiencing issues with unhoused individuals. Complainant’s unpaid projects included running electrical to future gate operators ($2548.00 owed), installing large main gates ($8466.20 owed), working on a structural steel post inside the building ($6507.00 owed), and preparing the materials for a four foot wall topper ($6897.00 owed).

As to the four foot wall topper, Mr. Carolan maintained that Complainant had prepared the materials for the project before Respondent cancelled the contract. Mr. Carolan indicated that the materials had been sitting in his yard since they had been prepared and were awaiting payment and delivery. Mr. Carolan asserted that Complainant made every attempt to comply with Respondent’s demands. Mr. Carolan changed the design of the gates and door based on feedback from Respondent and the owner. Mr. Carolan acknowledged there were issues with the appearance of the door because Respondent and the owner changed the height of the wall and door at different points during the job. Mr. Carolan denied any workmanship issues with the project.

Ms. Bach testified that much of the work performed by Complainant was incomplete or had to be redone. Respondent filed a workmanship complaint with the Registrar. As a result of the complaint, the Registrar issued a written directive to Complainant to address the man gate and post footings. Complainant did not alter the post footings.

Further, Ms. Bach indicated that Respondent had to hire an architect and engineer to review the main gate and door. Respondent also had to repair a drain line that was damaged and rebuild the gates. Ms. Bach also asserted that Respondent had to pay $500.00 per pull to get the electrical to the gate operators. Ms. Bach admitted that there could have been a small amount owed to Complainant, but maintained that Respondent was owed

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 a good faith contractual dispute existed between the parties as to the value of the work Respondent hired to complete or repair the work performed by Complainant.

As such, Complainant failed to establish that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(10) by failing to pay Complainant for services or materials rendered in connection with Respondent’s contracting business.

RECOMMENDed order

Based on the foregoing, it is recommended that the Registrar close the complaint in case number 2022-10551.

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 6, 2023.

/s/ Tammy L. Eigenheer

Administrative Law Judge

Transmitted electronically to:

Martín Quezada, Director

Registrar of Contractors

Blythe A. Edmondson

Edmondson & Landon

[email redacted]

SFA Contracting LLC

[email redacted]

By: OAH Staff