ALJDEC - Licensing
2023A-01958-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2023-05-18
IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
William Davis
COMPLAINANT,
v.
Arizona's Interior Innovations, LLC
DBA: Interior Innovations
License No. ROC 332195,
RESPONDENT.
No. 2023A-01958-CHC-ROC
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION
HEARING: April 28, 2023
APPEARANCES: Complainant William Davis appeared on behalf of himself.
No one appeared on behalf of Respondent Arizona’s Interior Innovations, LLC.
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Velva Moses-Thompson
_____________________________________________________________________
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. On or about November 11, 2022, Complainant William Davis entered into a residential kitchen remodeling contract with Respondent Arizona’s Interior Innovations, for the amount of $208,893.24.
2. Complainant paid Respondent a deposit in the amount of $74,716.39.
Respondent informed Complainant that materials for the project would not arrive for 12 to 14 weeks.
2. After 12 weeks passed, Complainant contacted Respondent and learned that Respondent had filed for bankruptcy and was no longer in business.
4. Respondent performed no work under the contract.
5. On or about February 16, 2023, the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (Registrar) received a complaint from Complainant alleging that Respondent abandoned the contract.
6. The Registrar assigned the complaint to its investigator, Lisa Melton.
7. Respondent’s license was suspended at the time that the complaint was received. Therefore, the Registrar did not issue a Directive to Respondent.
The Registrar directed Investigator Melton to obtain a statement from Mr. Davis regarding Respondent’s lack of performance under the contract.
8. On or about February 23, 2023, Investigator Melton obtained a statement from Mr. Davis regarding Respondent’s failure to perform work under the contract.
See the Registrar’s administrative record, pg. 32.
9. Investigator Melton subsequently recommended that the Registrar’s legal department issue a Citation against Respondent’s license.
10. On March 3, 2023, the Registrar issued a Citation against Respondent’s license alleging that Respondent violated Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) § 32-1154(A)(1) and (8).
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 28, 2023.
14. No one appeared on behalf of Respondent at the hearing on April 28, 2023. Although the hearing did not start until approximately 1:15 p.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, Mr. Davis testified on behalf of himself. Investigator Melton testified regarding her investigation of the complaint.
16. Mr. Davis explained that Respondent failed to perform work under the contract after Mr. Davis paid the required deposit.
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.
The revoked status of Respondent’s license does not deprive Complainant
of his right to prosecute the complaint or prevent the Registrar from determining the merits of Complainant’s complaint. This matter lies within the Registrar’s jurisdiction.
2. 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 Arizona Administrative Code R4-9-118.
3. The preponderance of the evidence shows that Respondent performed no work under the contract, which is a violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(1) and (8).
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Based on the foregoing, it is recommended that on the effective date of the order in this matter, License No. 332195 of Arizona's Interior Innovations, LLC is revoked.
It is further recommended that the Registrar require Respondent to pay the sum of $500.00 as a civil penalty.
It is further recommended that 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 18, 2023.
/s/ Velva Moses-Thompson
Administrative Law Judge
Transmitted by either mail, e-mail, or facsimile to:
Martín Quezada
Registrar of Contractors
[email redacted]
William Davis
[email redacted]
Lisa Melton
[email redacted]
Arizona's Interior Innovations LLC
DBA: Interior Innovations
[email redacted]
By: OAH Staff