ALJDEC - Licensing
2023A-01737-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2023-07-20
IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
Enriqueta Ramos Saldana,
COMPLAINANT
v.
On Point Solar Power LLC
License No. ROC 328926,
RESPONDENT
No. 2023A-01737-CHC-ROC
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION
HEARING: July 5, 2023
APPEARANCES: Complainant Enriqueta Ramos Saldana appeared on her own behalf. Dominic Sanchez and Alan Garcia appeared on behalf of Respondent On Point Solar Power LLC.
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Tammy L. Eigenheer
_____________________________________________________________________
FINDINGS OF FACT
On Point Solar Power LLC (Respondent) is the holder of License No. 328926 issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (Registrar).
On or about January 9, 2021, Enriqueta Ramos Saldana (Complainant) entered into a contract with Respondent for the installation of solar panels.
On or about February 14, 2023, the Registrar received a Complaint against Respondent from Complainant alleging poor work with respect to the project.
The Registrar assigned the complaint to Investigator Gregory Johndrow. After a jobsite inspection, Investigator Johndrow issued a written directive to Respondent that provided as follows:
After investigation, the Registrar determined that you failed to meet the requirements of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A), and now issues this Directive requiring you to take appropriate corrective action. Failure to comply with this Directive constitutes a violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22) and may result in the issuance of a citation, discipline of your license, and a civil penalty pursuant to A.R.S. § 32-1154(E) of up to $500.00. You must notify the Registrar’s assigned Investigator of your compliance with this Directive prior to 5:00 p.m. on April 14, 2023.
. . . .
DIRECTIVE REQUIREMENTS
You are directed to remedy the following violations by the appropriate means:
Complaint Item 2: “Gaps between edges and wood siding.”
Investigator’s Observations: Verified. The complainant pointed out and showed the installed fascia boards with large gaps between the butt joints that have been filled with caulking.
Governing Rule: A.R.S. § 32-1154 (A)(3) - R4-9-108(a): Violation of any rule adopted by the registrar; Namely R 4-9-108(a) A contractor shall perform work in a professional and workmanlike manner.
Complaint Item 5: “Meter service was decline due to improper installation.”
Investigator’s Observations: Verified. The complainant provided information showing the Meter service rejection from TEP. The respondent shall make the necessary corrections requested by TEP and ensure the system becomes energized.
Governing Rule: A.R.S. § 32-1154 (A)(3) - R4-9-108(a): Violation of any rule adopted by the registrar; Namely R 4-9-108(a) A contractor shall perform work in a professional and workmanlike manner.
Complaint Item 6: “Unfinished repair for open trench.”
Investigator’s Observations: Verified. The complainant pointed out and showed the section of open trench which has not been filled in with concrete. It is worth noting the section of trench that has been filled with concrete does not meet standards, due to the poor workmanship of finish not matching the existing flat work.
Governing Rule: A.R.S. § 32-1154 (A)(3) - R4-9-108(a): Violation of any rule adopted by the registrar; Namely R 4-9-108(a) A contractor shall perform work in a professional and workmanlike manner.
Complaint Item 7: “Damage on existing concrete due to unprofessional repair attempt.”
Investigator’s Observations: Verified. The complainant pointed out and showed the damage caused to the existing concrete patio as a result of the section of concrete removed for trenching.
Governing Rule: A.R.S. § 32-1154 (A)(3) - R4-9-108(a): Violation of any rule adopted by the registrar; Namely R 4-9-108(a) A contractor shall perform work in a professional and workmanlike manner.
Following the issuance of the written directive, Respondent failed to perform the corrective work. After the deadline in the directive expired, Investigator Johndrow was notified no corrective work had been performed.
The Registrar issued a Citation against Respondent, charging possible violations of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(A); and A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22).
Investigator Johndrow testified as to his observations of the project during the jobsite inspection.
Vicente Saldana testified that a certain amount of work was completed, but he could not recall when the work was done. Mr. Saldana stated that there were still issues with the plywood and rotten wood that needed to be corrected as of the hearing date.
Mr. Sanchez, Director of Compliance, admitted that Respondent missed the deadline in the directive of April 14, 2023, because he misunderstood that the work needed to be completed by that date. Mr. Sanchez asserted that all of the items in the directive had been resolved as of the hearing date. Mr. Sanchez stated that Item 1 was corrected on May 26, 2023, a Permission to Operate was issued on April 20, 2023, a complete redo of the concrete was completed on June 14, 2023, and a reseal of the roof to prevent leaking was done on June 27 and 28, 2023.
Administrative notice is taken of Respondent’s prior License record on July 20, 2023. Such prior License record reflects that Respondent’s License No. 328926 was first issued on May 15, 2020, and is active. Such prior License record also reflects that there were four open complaints, one resolved/settled complaint, and one complaint resulting in discipline against Respondent’s license.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
This matter lies within the Registrar’s jurisdiction. See A.R.S. § 32-1101 et seq.
Complainant bears the burden of proof to establish Respondent’s statutory violations by a preponderance of the evidence. See A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2); A.A.C. R2-19-119(A) and A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1); see also Vazzano v. Superior Court, 74 Ariz. 369, 372, 249 P.2d 837 (1952). “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).
The evidence established that Respondent’s work was not in conformity with the Registrar’s standards. Therefore, Complainant established that Respondent did not complete the project in a workmanlike manner in violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(A).
The evidence established that Respondent did not complete the corrective work following the directive being issued and before the deadline in the directive expired. Therefore, Complainant established that Respondent failed to take appropriate corrective action following a written directive from the Registrar in 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 Respondent’s License No. 328926 for a period of three 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 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)(5), 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, July 20, 2023.
/s/ Tammy L. Eigenheer
Administrative Law Judge
Transmitted by either mail, e-mail, or facsimile to:
Martín Quezada, Director
Registrar of Contractors
Gregory Johndrow
[email redacted]
Enriqueta Ramos Saldana
[email redacted]
On Point Solar Power LLC
[email redacted]
By: OAH Staff