ALJDEC - Licensing

2023A-05812-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2023-10-11

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

Adam Escobar,

COMPLAINANT,

v.

Desert Sky Pavers, LLC

License No. ROC 343520,

RESPONDENT.

No. 2023A-05812-ROC

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION

HEARING: September 25, 2023

APPEARANCES: Complainant Adam Escobar appeared on his own behalf. Aristeo Araujo appeared on behalf of Respondent Desert Sky Pavers, LLC. Arizona Registrar of Contractors Investigator Robert Di Alto appeared as a witness.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Sondra J. Vanella

FINDINGS OF FACT

Desert Sky Pavers, LLC (“Respondent”) is the holder of License Number 343520 issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (“Registrar”). Aristeo Araujo is Respondent’s Qualifying Party and Manager.

On or about August 2, 2022, Adam Escobar (“Complainant”) contracted with Respondent for Respondent to install pavers on the front walkway and back patio of his home. The contract price was $13,000.00. Complainant paid Respondent $6,500.00. Respondent’s representative at the time of contract was Mike Disrud. Mr. Disrud was the Qualifying Party and Member of Pavers and More, LLC, License Number 291341 which was issued on May 8, 2014, and most recently suspended on June 13, 2023, due to a Recovery Fund payout. The contract executed by the parties contained the name Pavers and More LLC and License number 291341.

On or about April 30, 2023, the Registrar received a Complaint against Respondent from Complainant alleging abandonment of the project.

The Registrar assigned the Complaint to Investigator Robert Di Alto. On May 9, 2023, Investigator Di Alto performed a Jobsite Inspection. Respondent did not attend the Jobsite Inspection. Investigator Di Alto’s Jobsite Inspection Notes set forth the following:

Complaint Item: 1 – Abandonment

Investigator’s Observation: I observed incomplete demo work and rough concrete with thin set mortar and construction debris at jobsite inspection. Complainant has not heard from Respondent and has paid for work to be performed by Respondent.

Investigator Di Alto did not issue a Written Directive to Respondent.

Investigator Di Alto forwarded the matter to the Registrar’s Legal Department. The Registrar issued a Citation against Respondent charging a possible violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(1).

The Registrar referred the matter to the Office of Administrative Hearings, an independent state agency, for an evidentiary hearing.

Investigator Di Alto testified that he contacted both Mike Disrud and Aristeo Araujo. Investigator Di Alto emailed a copy of the Complaint to both Mr. Disrud and Mr. Araujo. Investigator Di Alto testified that he spoke with Mr. Disrud who informed him that due to “health problems,” his company was “out of business,” however, Mr. Disrud answered the phone as Desert Sky Pavers.

Mr. Araujo told Investigator Di Alto that Mr. Disrud “had nothing to do with Pavers and More,” however, he also stated that Mr. Disrud “worked as an estimator for Mr. Araujo” and that Mr. Araujo had worked for Mr. Disrud at Pavers and More previously, explaining that he was paid by Mr. Disrud to perform work concerning Complainant’s pool, even though he was not licensed at the time. Investigator Di Alto testified that the conversation was “not productive.” Mr. Araujo also told Investigator Di Alto that he was unaware of Complainant’s project and had never met Complainant.

Complainant testified that he had previously contracted with Respondent to have pavers installed in his backyard. Complainant thereafter executed the contract that is the subject of the instant Complaint. Complainant testified that he paid a down payment for the project and then there was no further communication from Respondent. Complainant testified that Mr. Disrud and Mr. Araujo represented themselves to be a “joint company,” and that Mr. Disrud told him that the companies were “combining.” Complainant asserted that he contracted with Respondent, paid Respondent and the check was cashed by Respondent.

Mr. Araujo testified that it was he who wrote the check to Desert Sky Pavers, as Complainant had left the payee area of the check blank. Mr. Araujo testified that he applied those monies to the backyard project because he was unaware of the new project. Complainant credibly testified that he had already paid in full for the backyard project.

Administrative notice is taken of Respondent’s prior License record on October 5, 2023. Such prior License record reflects that Respondent’s License Number 343520 was first issued on March 2, 2023, and is active. Such prior License record also reflects that there is only the instant open complaint, no resolved/settled complaints, and no discipline against Respondent’s license.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

This matter lies within the Registrar’s jurisdiction.

Complainant bears the burden of proof to establish Respondent’s statutory violation by a preponderance of the evidence. “A preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.”

The credible evidence of record established that Respondent contracted for work to be performed and was paid monies for such work, and Respondent has abandoned that contract and refused to perform without legal excuse for such refusal. Therefore, Complainant established that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(1).

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Based on the foregoing, it is recommended that on the effective date of the Order, the Registrar shall suspend Respondent’s License Number 343520 for a period of five (5) days.

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, October 11, 2023.

/s/ Sondra J. Vanella

Administrative Law Judge

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

Tom Cole, Director

Registrar of Contractors

[email redacted]

Robert Di Alto

[email redacted]

Desert Sky Pavers, LLC

[email redacted]

Adam Escobar

[email redacted]

By: OAH Staff