ALJDEC - Licensing
2022A-11366-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2023-08-07
IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
Joseph Vallejo
COMPLAINANT,
v.
Az Preferred Plumbing, LLC
License No. ROC 289815,
RESPONDENT.
No. 2022A-11366-CHC-ROC
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION
HEARING: July 17, 2023
APPEARANCES: Complainant Joseph Vallejo appeared on behalf of himself. Marat Shamionov appeared on behalf of Respondent Az Preferred Plumbing, LLC.
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Velva Moses-Thompson
_____________________________________________________________________
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. On or about September 27, 2022, Complainant Joseph Vallejo and Respondent Az Preferred Plumbing, LLC entered into a residential remodeling contract for the amount of $18,000.
2. Respondent’s qualifying party is Marat Shamionov.
3. Respondent did not provide Complainant with a written contract that advised Complainant of his right to file a complaint with the Registrar against Respondent for an alleged violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A) within the time allowed by A.R.S. § 32-1155(A).
4. Respondent did not provide Complainant with a written contract that provided an estimated date of completion of the work.
5. Complainant paid Respondent $1,600.00 under the contract.
6. On or about December 12, 2022, Complainant filed a complaint with the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (Registrar) alleging poor work on the part of Respondent.
7. On or about February 2, 2023, Registrar Investigator Jason Simpson conducted a job-site inspection.
8. On or about February 21, 2023, the Registrar issued a Directive.
9. Complainant subsequently filed an addendum regarding the concrete slab.
10. On or about April 4, 2023, Investigator Simpson conducted a second job-site inspection that included the addendum item.
11. On April 7, 2023, the Registrar issued a Directive to Respondent that directed Respondent to correct complaint items 2 and 3 by appropriate means, no later than April 24, 2023.
12. During the time period for compliance with the Directive, Respondent sent a contractor to correct the Directive items. However, the contractor did not speak English and could not confirm that he was a licensed contractor. Therefore, Complainant did not allow the contractor to enter his home and make repairs.
13. After Respondent learned that Complainant did not allow the contractor to enter Complainant’s home, Respondent notified Investigator Simpson that the contractor was not required to be licensed under the handyman exemption. Investigator Simpson notified Respondent by email that because the amount of the contract exceeded $18,000, which is more than $1,000, the contractor was required to be licensed. Investigator Simpson further notified Respondent that the handyman exemption only applies to one item. See id.
14. Respondent failed to correct the items listed in the Directive.
15. On May 14, 2023, the Registrar issued a Citation against Respondent’s license alleging that Respondent violated Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) §§ 32-1154 (A)(3), (A)(12), and (A)(22); A.R.S. 32-1158; Arizona Administrative Code (A.A.C.) R4-9-108(A).
16. A timely answer was filed on behalf of Respondent.
17. The matter was referred to the Office of Administrative Hearings for an evidentiary hearing.
18. A hearing was held on July 17, 2023.
19. At hearing, Complainant testified on behalf of himself. Investigator Simpson8 testified regarding the investigation of the complaint and the issuance of the Directives. Mr. Shamionov and Mr. Williams testified on behalf of Respondent.
20. Complainant explained that Respondent performed poor work when it remodeled his home.
21. Investigator Simpson testified consistently with his job-site inspection notes and the Directives.
22. At hearing, Mr. Williams stated that the contractor sent by Respondent to correct the Directive items was licensed. However, Mr. Williams did not provide the name or license number of the contractor.
23. Mr. Shamionov and Mr. Williams asserted that it would cost less than $1,000 to correct the items listed in the Directive. No written verification regarding the costs to repair was provided.
24. Upon review of the evidence presented at hearing, the Administrative Law Judge concludes that Respondent failed to comply with the Directive without valid justification. As a part of the complaint process, Complainant was not required to allow an unlicensed contractor who could not communicate in English to enter his home.
25. Administrative notice is taken of the Registrar’s public website. According to the information available on the website on August 7, 2023, Respondent’s license was first issued on January 31, 2014, and is active. Such prior License record also shows that there is only one open complaint against Respondent. Respondent’s license has never been disciplined. The lack of prior discipline taken is considered a mitigating factor in imposing discipline.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
This matter lies within the Registrar’s jurisdiction. See A.R.S. § 32-1101 et seq.
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).
4. The Administrative Law Judge may consider the Registrar’s administrative record. See A.A.C. R4-9-118.
5. The preponderance of the evidence shows that Respondent did not perform the work in a professional and workmanlike manner, which is a violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(A).
6. The undisputed evidence established that Respondent’s contract did not include a statement that the property owner has the right to file a written complaint with the Registrar for alleged violations of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A), which is a violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(12) and A.R.S. § 32-1158.
7. The undisputed evidence established that Respondent’s contract did not include an estimated date of completion, which is a violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(12) and A.R.S. § 32-1158.
8. The preponderance of the evidence shows that Respondent failed to
correct the items listed in the Registrar’s 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, the Registrar shall suspend Az Preferred Plumbing, LLC License No. ROC 289815 for one day. It is further recommended that the Registrar require Respondent to pay the sum of $250.00 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, August 7, 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]
Joseph Vallejo
[email redacted]
Az Preferred Plumbing LLC
[email redacted]
Jason Simpson
[email redacted]
By: OAH Staff