ALJDEC - Licensing

2023A-02294-NPC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2023-06-02

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

Trafficade Service, LLC,

COMPLAINANT,

v.

Infrared Solutions, LLC

License No. ROC 314104,

RESPONDENT.

No. 2023A-02294-NPC-ROC

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION

HEARING: May 30, 2023

APPEARANCES: Erika Johnsen, Esq. represented Complainant Trafficade Service, LLC. Antonio Giannandrea appeared on behalf of Respondent Infrared Solutions, LLC. Antoinette Rodriguez appeared as a witness.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Sondra J. Vanella

FINDINGS OF FACT

Infrared Solutions, LLC (“Respondent”) is the holder of License No. 314104 issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (“Registrar”). Antonio Giannandrea is Respondent’s Qualifying Party.

On or about February 23, 2023, Trafficade Service, LLC (“Complainant”) filed a Complaint against Respondent with the Registrar alleging that Respondent had failed to pay Complainant the sum of $10,384.91 for various traffic control plans and services for several projects.

The parties were unable to resolve the dispute. The Registrar issued a Citation against Respondent for its alleged violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(10).

The matter was set for administrative hearing before the Office of Administrative Hearings on May 30, 2023, at 1:00 p.m. On the date and time set for hearing, Complaint was represented by counsel, Erika Johnsen. Antoinette Rodriguez, Complainant’s Billing and Collections Manager, was present. Antonio Giannandrea appeared on behalf of Respondent.

A the outset of the hearing, Mr. Giannandrea stated that he did not dispute the amount owed to Complainant and is not contesting the allegations set forth in the filed Complaint. Mr. Giannandrea testified that the job for which the money is owed was a “government job that failed” and that he is “trying to recoup money from the job.” Mr. Giannandrea acknowledged that Complainant is “right in what they’re asking for,” however, Respondent has “no ability to pay” and he “plans to pay when he has the funds.” Although Mr. Giannandrea asserted that he did not receive payment and does not have the funds to pay Complainant, Respondent did not present any evidence to establish an affirmative defense regarding the inability to pay the amount owed or that Respondent did not receive sufficient monies as payment for the project.

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 this matter is by a preponderance of the evidence. Respondent bears the burden of proof to establish affirmative defense(s) by the same evidentiary standard.

A preponderance of the evidence is “such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.”

A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(10) includes among the grounds for suspension, revocation, or other disciplinary action against a contractor’s license:

Failure 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.

Emphasis added.

The undisputed evidence established that Respondent owes Complainant a total of $10,384.91 for various traffic control plans and services provided by Complainant.

Respondent failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that it lacks the capacity to pay and has not received sufficient monies as payment for the particular project(s) which the services or materials were rendered or purchased.

Therefore, Complainant established that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(10) by failing to pay Complainant $10,384.91 for services or 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 Respondent’s License No. 314104 issued by the Registrar until it has provided to the Registrar, and the Registrar has accepted, documents that establish that it has paid Complainant $10,384.91 in certified funds.

It is further recommended that when and if the Registrar receives and accepts Respondent’s evidence that it has paid Complainant $10,384.91 in certified funds, the Registrar may close the Complaint in Case No. 2023-02294.

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, June 2, 2023.

/s/ Sondra J. Vanella

Administrative Law Judge

Transmitted by either mail, e-mail, or facsimile to:

Martín Quezada, Director

Registrar of Contractors

[email redacted]

Infrared Solutions, LLC

[email redacted]

Trafficade Service, LLC

[email redacted]

Erika L. Johnsen, Esq.

[email redacted]

By: OAH Staff