ALJDEC - Licensing
2023A-08181-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2024-04-15
IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
Erycka Cartee
COMPLAINANT,
v.
Penn-Tek LLC
License No. ROC 328761,
RESPONDENT.
No. 2023A-08181-CHC-ROC
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION
HEARING: March 25, 2024
APPEARANCES: Complainant Erycka Cartee (Complainant) represented herself. Gregory Pennington represented Respondent Penn-Tek LLC (Respondent).
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Velva Moses-Thompson
EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: None.
_____________________________________________________________________
FINDINGS OF FACT
Respondent holds License No. 324711 issued by the Arizona
Registrar of Contractors (Registrar).
2. Gregory Pennington is Respondent’s qualifying party.
3. On or about November 19, 2021, Complainant and Respondent entered into a contract wherein Respondent would repair Complainant’s roof.
4. On or about October 17, 2022, Respondent began work under the contract.
5. On or about June 12, 2023, Respondent stopped work.
6. On or about July 19, 2023, the Registrar received a complaint from Complainant alleging poor work on the part of Respondent.
7. On or about December 5, 2023, Registrar Investigator Michael Springer conducted a job-site inspection.
8. On December 5, 2023, Investigator Springer issued a Directive against Respondent’s license. The Directive required that Respondent correct complaint items 1 through 3, by appropriate means, no later than December 21, 2023.
9. Respondent did not correct the items listed in the Directive by December 21, 2023.
10. On January 28, 2024, the Registrar issued a Citation that contained allegations that Respondent may have violated A.A.C. R4-9-108(A) and Ariz. Rev. Stat. section 32-1154(A)(3); Ariz. Rev. Stat. section 32-1154(A)(22). The Citation shows that if the Administrative Law Judge finds that any of the alleged charges are valid, the Registrar may suspend or revoke Respondent’s license.
11. Respondent filed a timely appeal to the Citation.
12. The matter was referred to the Office of Administrative Hearings for an
evidentiary hearing.
13. At hearing, Complainant testified on behalf of herself. Mr. Pennington testified on behalf of Respondent. Investigator Springer testified consistently with his job-site inspection notes.
14. Complainant explained that Respondent performed poor work and her roof caved in.
16. Mr. Pennington stated that all of the corrections were completed at the end of January.
17. Administrative notice is taken of Respondent’s disciplinary history as shown on the Registrar’s public website on April 15, 2024. Respondent’s license record shows that its licensed was issued on May 6, 2020 and one complaint has resulted 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.
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 these matters is by a preponderance of the evidence. See A.A.C. R2-19-119.
3. The Administrative Law Judge may consider ROC’s administrative record. See Ariz. Admin. Code § R4-9-118.
4. 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).
5. The preponderance of the evidence shows that Respondent failed to perform the work in a professional and workmanlike manner, which is a violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. section 32-1154(A)(3), namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(A).
6. The preponderance of the evidence shows that Respondent failed to
correct the items listed in the Registrar’s Directive without valid justification, which is a violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. section 32-1154(A)(22).
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Based on the foregoing, it is recommended that on the effective date of the Order, the Registrar shall suspend ROC License: No. 28761 held by Penn-Tek, LLC, for five days.
It is further recommended that the Registrar require Respondent to pay the sum of $500.00 as a civil penalty pursuant to Ariz. Rev. Stat. section 32-1154(E).
It is further recommended that no future license shall be issued to any entity consisting of persons associated with Respondent, as defined in Ariz. Rev. Stat. section 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, April 15, 2024.
/s/ Velva Moses-Thompson
Administrative Law Judge
Transmitted by either mail, e-mail, or facsimile to:
Tom Cole, Director
Registrar of Contractors
Erycka Cartee
[email redacted]
Penn-Tek LLC
[email redacted]
By: OAH Staff