ALJDEC - Licensing
2023A-08894-NPC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2024-01-03
IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
Southwest Barricades LLC,
COMPLAINANT
v.
Access One Consulting LLC
License No. ROC 332676,
RESPONDENT
No. 2023A-08894-NPC-ROC
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION
HEARING: December 15, 2023
APPEARANCES: Joseph L. Whipple appeared via Google Meet on behalf of Complainant Southwest Barricades, LLC.
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Adam D. Stone
EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: Complainant’s exhibits 1-20 were admitted into evidence.
_____________________________________________________________________
FINDINGS OF FACT
Access One Consulting LLC (Respondent) is the holder of License No. 332676 issued by the Registrar of Contractors (Registrar).
On or about August 3, 2023, Southwest Barricades LLC (Complainant) filed a Complaint against Respondent with the Registrar alleging that Respondent had failed to pay Complainant the sum of $30,516.00 for equipment and services provided.
The parties were unable to resolve their differences, and Complainant requested an administrative hearing. The Registrar then issued a Citation for Alleged Violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(10) on September 8, 2023.
On or about August 22, 2023, Respondent e-mailed a Response to the Citation arguing that it believed that only $11,563.69 was owed on the six invoices.
The Registrar referred the matter to the Office of Administrative Hearings, an independent state agency, for an evidentiary hearing.
The Registrar issued a Notice of Hearing, setting a hearing at 9:00 a.m. on December 15, 2023. The Registrar mailed copies of the Notice of Hearing to Respondent at its address and email address of record.
By order dated October 27, 2023, the parties were advised the hearing would be held via Google Meet.
The hearing was held as scheduled on December 15, 2023. Stewart Bowes appeared as a witness on behalf of Complainant.
The Tribunal waited for fifteen minutes, but Respondent failed to appear. Because Respondent did not appear through an authorized member, employee, or attorney, Respondent did not present any evidence to defend its license.
Mr. Bowes testified that the parties entered into a contract, whereby Complainant was to provide barricades and supply off duty police officers for a couple of Respondent’s projects namely, the 94th St. project and the Pima Rd./Westland Rd. project. Mr. Bowes testified that Complainant timely submitted the six invoices, and that Respondent had failed to remit any payments.
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 these matters is by a preponderance of the evidence. See A.A.C. R2-19-119.
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. § 32-1154(A)(10) includes among the grounds for suspension, revocation, or other disciplinary action against a contractor’s license,
[f]ailure 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.
The evidence established that Respondent owed a total of $30,516.49 for equipment and services supplied.
Therefore, Complainant established that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(10) by failing to pay Complainant $30,516.49 for equipment and services 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 Access One Consulting LLC’s License No: 332676 issued by the Registrar until it has provided to the Registrar, and the Registrar has accepted, documents that establish that it has paid Complainant $30,516.49 in certified funds.
It is further recommended that when and if the Registrar receives and accepts Respondent’s evidence that it has paid Complainant $30,516.49 in certified funds, the Registrar may close the Complaint in Case No. 2023-08894.
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, January 3, 2024.
/s/ Adam D. Stone
Administrative Law Judge
Transmitted by either mail, e-mail, or facsimile to:
Tom Cole, Director
Registrar of Contractors
Access One Consulting LLC
[email redacted]
Mark A. Kirkorsky, Esq.
[email redacted]
By: OAH Staff