ALJDEC - Licensing
2022A-11049-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2023-05-11
IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
Alma Hall
COMPLAINANT.
v.
Blue Clear Sky Contracting LLC
License No. ROC 272952,
RESPONDENT.
No. 2022A-11049-CHC-ROC
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION
HEARING: April 21, 2023
APPEARANCES: Complainant Alma Hall appeared on behalf of herself. No one appeared on behalf of Respondent Blue Clear Sky Contracting, LLC.
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Velva Moses-Thompson
_____________________________________________________________________
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. On or about June 9, 2022, Complainant Alma Hall entered into a new home construction contract with Respondent Blue Clear Sky Contracting, LLC, for the amount of $395,500.
2. Complainant paid Respondent $395,500 under the contract.
3. Respondent started work in 2022.
4. On August 16, 2022, Respondent stopped work.
5. On or about December 1, 2022, the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (Registrar) received a complaint from Complainant alleging poor work and abandonment on the part of Respondent. The complaint contained 23 complaint items.
6. On or about January 12, 2023, Registrar Investigator Mike Springer conducted a job-site inspection.
7. On or about January 12, 2023, the Registrar issued a Directive to Respondent directing Respondent to correct complaint items 2-4, 7-8, 10, 13-14, and 18-23, by appropriate means, no later than January 31, 2023. See the Registrar’s administrative record, pgs. 24-30.
8. On February 7, 2023, Investigator Smith conducted a compliance job-site inspection.
9. Investigator Smith concluded that Respondent failed to correct complaint items 3, 8, 10, and 23. See the Registrar’s administrative record, pg. 38. Investigator Smith’s job-site inspection notes provided, in relevant part, as follows:
Compliance Jobsite General Notes:
The following items have not been corrected:
Compliance Item: 3 - Several areas have gaps on exterior ex door frames, window frames.
Compliance Item: 8 - Closet doors are too long & missing guides. (Out of adjustment)
Compliance Item: 10 - Holes in grout in several locations & gap between tile and floor. (New grout does not match)
Compliance Item: 23 - Touch up paint needed at guest bath ceiling vent.
10. On February 9, 2023, the Registrar issued a Citation against Respondent’s license alleging that Respondent violated Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) § 32-1154(A)(3) and (22); Arizona Administrative Code (A.A.C.) R4-9-108(A).
11. Respondent filed a timely answer to the Citation.
12. The matter was referred to the Office of Administrative Hearings for an evidentiary hearing.
13. A hearing was held on April 21, 2023.
14. No one appeared on behalf of Respondent at the hearing on April 21, 2023. Although the hearing did not start until approximately 9:15 a.m., no one appeared on behalf of Respondent through an authorized member, officer, employee, or attorney, or contact the OAH to request that the start of the hearing be further delayed. Consequently, Respondent did not present any evidence to defend its license.
15. At hearing, Ms. Hall testified on behalf of herself. Investigator Smith testified consistently with his job-site inspection notes, the Directive, and his compliance job-site inspection notes.
16. Ms. Hall explained that Respondent performed poor work on her home and did not make corrections to his poor work.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Registrar has jurisdiction over this matter, pursuant to A.R.S. § 32-1101, et seq., which authorizes the Registrar to impose disciplinary sanctions against licenses for violations of A.R.S. § 32-1154.
To warrant such sanctions by the Registrar, Complainant must demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated the statutory section cited. Proof by a “preponderance” means that “the evidence is sufficient to persuade the finder of fact that the proposition is more likely true than not.” In re: Arnold and Baker Farms, 177 B.R. 648 (9th Cir. BAP (Ariz.) 1994). See also Culpepper v. State of Arizona, 187 Ariz. 431, 930 P.2d 508 (App. 1996). It is “evidence which is of greater weight or more convincing than the evidence which is offered in opposition to it; that is, evidence which as a whole shows that the fact sought to be proved is more probable than not.” Black’s Law Dictionary 1182 (Rev. 6th ed. 1990).
The Administrative Law Judge may consider Registrar’s administrative record. See Ariz. Admin. Code § R4-9-118.
4. The preponderance of the evidence shows that Respondent did not perform the work in a professional and workmanlike manner in violation of A.A.C. R4-9-108(A), and thereby of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3).
5. The preponderance of the evidence shows that Respondent failed to comply with the Directive without valid justification, which is a 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 in this matter, License No. ROC 272952 of Blue Clear Sky Contracting LLC, shall be suspended for five 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 days following the effective date of the Registrar’s 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 11, 2023.
/s/ Velva Moses-Thompson
Administrative Law Judge
Transmitted by either mail, e-mail, or facsimile to:
Martín Quezada, Director
Registrar of Contractors
[email redacted]
Mike Springer
[email redacted]
Alma Hall
[email redacted]
Blue Clear Sky Contracting LLC
[email redacted]
By: OAH Staff