ALJDEC - Licensing

2023A-00087-NPC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2023-08-06

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

Patriot Flooring LLC,

COMPLAINANT,

San Tan Construction LLC,

DBA: San Tan Realty

License No. ROC 261248,

RESPONDENT.

No. 2023A-00087-NPC-ROC

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION

HEARING: July 14, 2023

APPEARANCES: Attorney Jeffrey Cox represented Patriot Flooring LLC with William Cox appearing on behalf of Patriot Flooring LLC. No person appeared on behalf of San Tan Construction LLC, dba San Tan Realty.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Kay Abramsohn

_____________________________________________________________________

FINDINGS OF FACT

San Tan Construction LLC, dba San Tan Realty (Respondent) is the holder of License No. 261248 issued by the Registrar of Contractors (Registrar).

In January of 2023, Patriot Flooring LLC (Complainant) filed a Non-Payment Complaint Form (Complaint) against Respondent with the Registrar alleging that Respondent had failed to pay Complainant the sum of $40,922.40 for work performed on two projects.

Complainant not receiving full payment, the parties failed to resolve the matter informally.

The Registrar issued a Citation for Alleged Violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(10).

At hearing, Complainant indicated that the matter was partially resolved because Respondent had paid “half.” Complainant discussed the two invoices for work performed and indicated that one invoice with a balance of $17,558.00 [#1008] was unpaid and that the other invoice [#1009/1010] was unpaid only in the amount of $2,400.00.

Respondent did not appear to present any evidence.

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, at the time if the hearing, Respondent owes Complainant a total of $19,958.00 on the two projects.

Respondent failed to establish by any preponderance of evidence that it lacked the ability to pay Complainant for the work performed or that it had not been paid sufficient funds on the projects for which Complainant’s services were performed.

Therefore, Complainant established that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(10) by failing to pay Complainant $19,958.00 for services and 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 San Tan Construction LLC, dba San Tan Realty License No. 261248 issued by the Registrar until it has provided to the Registrar, and the Registrar has accepted, documents that establish that it has paid Complainant $19,958.00 in certified funds.

-124460-45720000 It is further recommended that when and if the Registrar receives and accepts Respondent’s evidence that it has paid Complainant $19,958.00 in certified funds, the Registrar may close the Complaint in Case No. 2023-00087.-54864001

001

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 6, 2023.

/s/ Kay A. Abramsohn

Administrative Law Judge

Transmitted electronically to:

Martín Quezada, Registrar

Registrar of Contractors

Legal Department

[email redacted]

Jeffrey Cox, Esq.

[email redacted]

Complainant

Michael T. Denious, Esq.

Stoops, Denious, Wilson & Murray, PLC

[email redacted]

Respondent

By: OAH Staff