ALJDEC - Licensing
2023A-03316-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2023-08-10
IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
Andrew and Jennifer Cignoni,
COMPLAINANT
v.
Rio Verde Electric LLC
License No. ROC 319424,
RESPONDENT
No. 2023A-03316-CHC-ROC
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION
HEARING: July 21, 2023
APPEARANCES: Complainant Jennifer Cignoni appeared on her own behalf. Thomas Halik, Owner and Qualifying Party, appeared on behalf of Respondent Rio Verde Electric LLC.
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Tammy L. Eigenheer
_____________________________________________________________________
FINDINGS OF FACT
Rio Verde Electric LLC (Respondent) is the holder of License No. 319424 issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (Registrar).
On or about November 10, 2021, Jennifer Cignoni (Complainant) entered into a verbal contract with Respondent for electrical work in the barn at her home.
Complainant filed a complaint including two complaint items with respect to the project. As a result of the complaint investigation, a directive was issued. Respondent failed to comply with the directive and a citation was issued. Respondent failed to file an answer to the citation and a default judgment was issued against Respondent.
Following the resolution of the complaint, Complainant filed a recovery fund claim. The claim was denied as the bids to repair the work was excessive in light of the limited items raised in the complaint.
Complainant was advised that she could file a new complaint with more specific items to expand the scope of a possible recovery fund claim.
On or about March 16, 2023, the Registrar received a complaint against Respondent from Complainant alleging poor work with respect to the project. The complaint included a notarized list of faulty items that were within the scope of work under the contract.
The Registrar assigned the complaint to Investigator David Fagerburg. After a jobsite inspection, Investigator Fagerburg determined there were multiple issues with the project. Investigator Fagerburg did not issue a written directive because Respondent’s license was revoked at the time of the jobsite inspection.
The Registrar issued a Citation against Respondent, charging possible violations of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(2)(b) and A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(A).
Investigator Fagerburg testified that Respondent was responsible to ensure that the electrical was in compliance with code when it started work on the project. Investigator Fagerburg noted that Respondent had moved out of the state and Mr. Halik told him there were parts of the job Investigator Fagerburg noted that he did not perform.
Complainant testified that she hired Respondent to perform electrical work in her horse barn, but sometime later, there was a fire as a result of the electrical work. Complainant denied hiring Respondent for any work in her home.
Mr. Halik testified that he was unaware of the complaints that Complainant had filed. Mr. Halik asserted that his business relationship with Complainant began with the installation of a ceiling fan in her bedroom. After Complainant denied having Respondent perform any work in her home, Mr. Halik admitted he may have been thinking of a different project. Mr. Halik admitted that he did not update his phone number or mailing address with the Registrar at any point.
Administrative notice is taken of Respondent’s prior License record on August 10, 2023. Such prior License record reflects that Respondent’s License No. 319424 was first issued on June 17, 2018, and was revoked on December 5, 2022. Such prior License record also reflects that there were no other open complaints and one prior 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).
A.R.S. § 32-1122(B) provides that a licensee must update the names and addresses of the officers, owners, and qualifying party within 30 days of a change.
The evidence established that Respondent did not complete the project in accordance with the applicable building code in a manner that was prejudicial to Complainant. Therefore, Complainant established that Respondent departed from or disregarded applicable building code in violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(2)(b).
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).
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Based on the foregoing, it is recommended that on the effective date of the Order, the Registrar shall revoke Respondent’s License No. 319424.
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 10, 2023.
/s/ Tammy L. Eigenheer
Administrative Law Judge
Transmitted by either mail, e-mail, or facsimile to:
Martín Quezada, Director
Registrar of Contractors
David Fagerburg
[email redacted]
Rio Verde Electric LLC
[email redacted]
Andrew Cignoni
[email redacted]
By: OAH Staff