ALJDEC - Licensing

2023A-06232-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2023-11-06

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

Lillie B Glasco,

COMPLAINANT

v.

Joshua Nathan Mayo

DBA: J Builders

License No. ROC 280323,

RESPONDENT

No. 2023A-06232-CHC-ROC

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION

HEARING: October 17, 2023

APPEARANCES: Lillie Glasco appeared on her own behalf. Joshua Nathan Mayo appeared on his own behalf.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Brian Del Vecchio

FINDINGS OF FACT

Joshua Nathan Mayo (Respondent) is the holder of License No. 280323 issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (Registrar).

On or about February 8, 2023, Lillie B. Glasco (Complainant) entered into a contract with Respondent for, among other things, the installation of a tub.

On or about May 31, 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 Jack Grimm. After a jobsite inspection, Investigator Grimm 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 August 7, 2023.

RESTRICTIONS

You may not perform or hire other contractors to perform work that is outside the scope of your license.

If your license is currently suspended for administrative reasons, or is inactive, expired, or cancelled, you may not perform any corrective work nor contract in any manner, which includes hiring other contractors to perform work, until the suspension of your license(s) has been lifted or your license(s) has been reactivated.

DIRECTIVE REQUIREMENTS,

You are directed to remedy the following violations by the appropriate means:

Complaint item #1: Poor workmanship on installation of walk in tub 2-8-2023.

Investigators Observation: The tub installation appears acceptable as install given the tight location. It does appear there is a small water leak under the tub as a wet spot was showing under the edge. Homeowner states she took a bath that morning. The respondent was not present to remove the access panel for inspection.

*Determine cause of leak and correct. Location of leak may be the supply lines or the drain.

Governing Rule: 32-1154(A)(3) Poor work – A contractor shall perform all work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

Following the issuance of the written directive, Mr. Mayo did not attempt to address the written directive. After the written directive deadline passed Investigator Grimm reached out to Complainant and she informed him Mr. Mayo had not returned to the jobsite.

The Registrar issued a Citation against Respondent, charging possible violations of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely Ariz. Admin. Code R4-9-108(A); and Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(22).

Investigator Grimm testified the week of the hearing he conducted a pre-hearing inspection at Complainant’s home. At the pre-hearing inspection Investigator Grimm noticed there were no water leaks and the sole verified complaint item had been remedied.

Complainant testified she hired Respondent to install a tub purchased from a third party seller. Upon delivery of the tub, Mr. Mayo went to Complainant’s home to install it, however, Mr. Mayo measured the tub and told Complainant he would be unable to make the tub fit as it was larger than the space could accommodate. Complainant spoke with the third party tub salesman and they agreed to exchange tubs for one better suited to the space. When the new tub arrived, Complainant immediately noticed the features did not match the original tub. Complainant believed she was getting the same features in a smaller form factor to fit the dimensions of her bathroom; however, the tub she received was lacking features such as LED lighting and Bluetooth wireless speakers. Mr. Mayo installed the tub, however, Complainant noticed water around the threshold of the entrance of the tub every time she used it. Complainant believed the water was due to a leak form the installation of the tub. Complainant reached out to Mr. Mayo and asked him to address the possible leak, however, Mr. Mayo could not find a leak.

Mr. Mayo testified he was an independent contractor; he had no connection to the tub salesman other than the fact that occasionally the salesman refers customers to Respondent. There was no contractual agreement between the tub salesman and Mr. Mayo. Mr. Mayo testified he installed the tub and there were no leaks. The water on the floor was the result of the fully articulable shower head. When Complainant used the showerhead, water could accumulate on the water line. When the water was off, water could run down the handle and down the water line which could drip onto the floor. Mr. Mayo testified he checked and rechecked the tub and no leaks were found. At the pre-hearing inspection Investigator Grimm concurred with Mr. Mayo’s assessment that there were no leaks.

Administrative notice is taken of Respondent’s License record on November 1, 2023. Such prior License record reflects that Respondent’s License No. 280323 was first issued on August 14, 2012, and is active. Respondent’s License record also reflects that there were no open complaints and no other complaints 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 violations 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 evidence established that Respondent’s work was in conformity with the Registrar’s standards. Investigator Grimm testified all workmanship issues had been addressed. Therefore, Complainant failed to establish that Respondent did not complete the project in a workmanlike manner in violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely Ariz. Admin. Code R4-9-108(A).

The evidence established that Respondent did not need to complete any corrective work following the Directive being issued. Therefore, Complainant failed to establish that Respondent failed to take appropriate corrective action following a written directive from the Registrar in violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(22).

RECOMMENDED ORDER

It is recommended that on the effective date of the Registrar’s final order in this matter, the Registrar close Complainant’s complaint in Case No. 2023-06232 against Respondent’s License No. 280323.

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, November 6, 2023.

/s/ Brian Del Vecchio

Administrative Law Judge

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

Tom Cole, Director

Registrar of Contractors

Joshua Nathan Mayo

DBA: J Builders

4739 W El Cortez Pl

Phoenix, AZ 85083

[email redacted]

Lillie B. Glasco

6445 S. 11th St.

Phoenix, AZ 85042

By: OAH Staff