2023A-10308-CHC-ROC Notice of Hearing and Packet MAILED

2023A-10308-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2024-02-26

REGISTRAR OF CONTRACTORS OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA

Ken Boldt , Case No. 2023-10308 COMPLAINANT, Docket No. 2023A-10308-CHC-ROC v. NOTICE OF HEARING ON CONTESTED CASE Atlas General LLC License No. ROC 277937,

RESPONDENT.

This Notice of Hearing is issued under A.R.S. § 41-1092.05(D).

HEARING INFORMATION The hearing is set for:

April 9, 2024 1:00 PM Tammy Eigenheer Google Meet. A link will be provided directly from The Office of Administrative Hearings. Go to www.azoah.com to request to appear in-person.

If you have requested to appear in-person at the hearing, the hearing will be held at 1740 W Adams Street, Phoenix, AZ 85007.

You must attend this hearing. This is an adversarial hearing before an administrative law judge, and is conducted in a similar manner as judicial proceedings. Thus, you must be

prepared to present evidence, including witness testimony and documents, in support of your case.

STATEMENT OF LEGAL AUTHORITY AND JURISDICTION The State of Arizona has determined that the licensing and regulation of construction contractors is a proper state function, and has vested authority in the Registrar of Contractors to administer Title 32, Chapter 10 of the Arizona Revised Statutes. A.R.S. §§ 32-1101 et seq. All hearings for alleged violations of Title 32, Chapter 10 are conducted under Title 41,

Chapter 6, Article 10. A.R.S. § 32-1156.

The statutes and rules governing the hearing can be found at: Arizona Revised

Statutes §§ 41-1092 to -1092.12, and Arizona Administrative Code R2-19-101 to -122.

PARTICULAR ARIZONA STATUTES AND RULES INVOLVED The statutes and rules the Respondent is alleged to have violated are cited in the

complaint and citation, which were served on the Respondent on January 25, 2024. SHORT AND PLAIN STATEMENT OF THE MATTERS ASSERTED The complaint and citation allege that the Respondent committed the following act(s): Charge: 1 A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) - R4-9-108(a)

Charge: 2 A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22)

THE PARTIES TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING

Because Respondent is a licensee and is charged with an act(s) or omission(s) that is cause for the suspension or revocation of a license, Respondent is a party to this case and will be a party to the hearing. Because Complainant alleged Respondent committed an act(s) or omission(s) that is cause for the suspension or revocation of a license, Complainant is a party to this case and will be a party to the hearing.

Respondent and Complainant, as the parties to the hearing, will present evidence and

argument to the administrative law judge.

The Registrar’s assigned investigator will appear as a witness at the hearing.

RIGHT TO BE REPRESENTED The parties to the administrative hearing may choose to be represented by an attorney. A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(B). If one of the parties is a company, the company may be represented by an officer or employee if that person satisfies the conditions set forth in A.R.S. § 32- 1156(B).

CHANGE OF ADDRESS Each party must inform the Registrar and the Office of Administrative Hearings of any change of address within five (5) days of the change. A.R.S. § 41-1092.04.

HEARING PROCEDURES AND RULES The administrative hearing will be conducted in accordance with A.R.S. §§ 41-1092 to -1092.12, and A.A.C. R2-19-101 to -122. The parties should review the statutes, rules, and processes governing the administrative hearing. Copies of the statutes, rules, and articles regarding the administrative hearing process can be found at https://www.azoah.com/.

REGISTRAR’S APPEARANCE BY VIDEO CONFERENCE OR TELEPHONE The Registrar’s investigators, employees, and attorneys will appear at the hearing via video conference or telephone unless requested by a party to appear in-person. Requests for the Registrar’s investigators, employees, or attorneys to appear in-person must be filed with the Registrar and the Office of Administrative Hearings no later than seven (7) calendar days prior to the hearing date.

HEARING PACKET In the interests of administrative efficiency, the Registrar compiles and discloses

certain documents to the parties and the Office of Administrative Hearings. These documents

are attached to this Notice of Hearing as the “Hearing Packet.” If any party wishes to submit

additional evidence, they must do so during the hearing after completing a disclosure statement. See “Disclosure Statement” section below. SUBPOENAS FOR TESTIMONY FROM A WITNESS OR DOCUMENTS The parties to the hearing must be prepared to present evidence in support of their

case. If a party wants to obtain testimony from a witness or documents not in the party’s

possession, the party must prepare and file a written subpoena for the Administrative Law

Judge to review and sign, if approved. A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(C). Forms for requesting a

subpoena can be found on the Office of Administrative Hearings’ website at www.azoah.com. The party seeking a subpoena must serve notice on all the parties to the hearing, and on the Registrar. A.R.S. § 41-1092.04.

DISCLOSURE STATEMENT

At least seven calendar days before the hearing, each party must prepare and serve a disclosure statement on all other parties, and file it with the Office of Administrative Hearings. A.A.C. R4-9-118; A.A.C. R2-19-108. The disclosure statement must include any exhibit the party will use at the hearing. A party’s failure to timely disclose any witness or exhibit, without good cause, may result in the administrative law judge excluding those witnesses or exhibits from being used at the hearing. A.A.C. R4-9-118(C). A sample disclosure form is

available on the Registrar’s website at https://roc.az.gov/forms/RC-L-800A%20-

%20Prehearing%20Disclosure%20Statement%2020191007v4.pdf

CHANGING THE HEARING DATE The date of the hearing may only be advanced or delayed on the agreement of the parties or on a showing of good cause. A.R.S. § 41-1092.05(C). The date of the hearing may be changed by filing a written agreement of the parties to change the date of the hearing. The written agreement must be filed with the Office of Administrative Hearings, directed to the assigned Administrative Law Judge, and transmitted to the Registrar and all other parties. The assigned Administrative Law Judge may be found on the Office of Administrative Hearings’ web portal at www.azoah.com If a party would like to move the date of the hearing without agreement of all parties,

the party must file a written motion with the Office of Administrative Hearings, directed to the

assigned Administrative Law Judge, and transmit a copy to the Registrar and all other parties.

The motion must state in detail good cause for why the date of the hearing should be advanced or delayed, and the position of all other parties regarding the advancement or delay. A party may also file a motion asserting a right to an expedited hearing upon a showing of extraordinary circumstances or the possibility of irreparable harm. A.R.S. § 41-1092.05(E).

RESOLUTION SHORT OF ADJUDICATION In any case which is resolved or settled by the parties, or which is withdrawn by the Complainant without objection from Respondent after the Notice of Hearing is issued, the parties must notify the Office of Administrative Hearings of the resolution or settlement. Any such cases will be listed on the Registrar’s website and its records under the category: “Closed Complaints – Resolved/Settled/Withdrawn.” Dated February 26, 2024.

By: /s/ Erika Hoskin Erika Hoskin Legal Secretary Legal Department Arizona Registrar of Contractors Copy mailed via USPS First Class mail February 26, 2024 to: Respondent(s) Atlas General LLC 6250 E Cheney Dr Paradise Valley, AZ 85253-3518

Complainant(s) Ken Boldt 3917 N Dorado Ln Casa Grande, AZ 85122

Copy sent electronically this same date to: Respondent at email address on record with the Registrar Complainant at email address on record with the Registrar

Case No. 2023-10308 /

Katie Hobbs, Governor Martin Quezada, Director

Hearing Packet FAQ What is the Hearing Packet?

The Hearing Packet is a packet of certain documents collected or issued by the Registrar over the course of its investigation.

Who gets the Hearing Packet?

The Hearing Packet is assembled and distributed to all parties and to the Office of Administrative Hearings (“OAH”) prior to an administrative hearing.

What types of cases does the Registrar prepare a Hearing Packet for?

The Registrar prepares a Hearing Packet for Complainant-Handled Cases and No-Pay Cases. Note: If the Docket Number on the Notice of Hearing contains a “CHC” or “NPC”, your case is a Complainant-Handled Case or a No-Pay Case.

What is in the Hearing Packet?

The Hearing Packet contains essential case-specific documents and at a minimum will include the following documents:

● Original complaint;

1700 W. Washington Street, Suite 105 · Phoenix AZ 85007-2812 602.542.1525 · Within AZ 877.692.9762 · Fax 602.542.1599 · roc.az.gov Hearing Packet FAQ

Katie Hobbs, Governor Martin Quezada, Director

● Citation; and ● Answer.

The Hearing Packet will also contain the following documents (if applicable):

● Jobsite inspection notices, notes, and photos; ● Written directives; and ● Compliance inspection notices, notes, and photos.

What if there are documents missing from the Hearing Packet?

If there is any evidence you submitted to the Registrar that are not included in the Hearing Packet it is your responsibility to introduce that evidence at the administrative hearing. Note: The administrative law judge assigned to your case does not have access to the entire Registrar record.

If there is additional evidence you submitted to the Registrar during the investigation that you also want to introduce as evidence during your hearing, it is your responsibility to:

● Properly disclose that evidence to the other party; and ● Introduce the evidence during your hearing.

1700 W. Washington Street, Suite 105 · Phoenix AZ 85007-2812 602.542.1525 · Within AZ 877.692.9762 · Fax 602.542.1599 · roc.az.gov Hearing Packet FAQ

Katie Hobbs, Governor Martin Quezada, Director

How do I disclose evidence I intend to use at a Hearing?

You must properly disclose any and all documents and witnesses you intend to use at your hearing according to the Registrar’s Prehearing Disclosure Rules. See Arizona Administrative Code Section R4-9-118.

A sample prehearing disclosure form and instructions are provided to the parties by the Registrar.

How do I obtain documents I previously submitted to the Registrar?

If you previously submitted documents to the Registrar and need a copy of these documents, please contact the Registrar’s Legal Department or submit a public records request at https://roc.force.com/AZRoc/s/roc-public-request.

1700 W. Washington Street, Suite 105 · Phoenix AZ 85007-2812 602.542.1525 · Within AZ 877.692.9762 · Fax 602.542.1599 · roc.az.gov Hearing Packet FAQ

Complainant: Ken Boldt 3917 N Dorado Ln Casa GrNde, AZ 85122

1700 W. Washington Street, Suite 105 · Phoenix AZ 85007-2812

602.542.1525 · Toll Free 877.692.9762 · roc.az.gov C008 05/21 Respondent: Atlas General LLC 6250 E Cheney Dr Paradise Valley, AZ 85253-3518

1700 W. Washington Street, Suite 105 · Phoenix AZ 85007-2812

602.542.1525 · Toll Free 877.692.9762 · roc.az.gov C008 05/21 September 14, 2023

Jobsite Inspection Notice Re: Complaint Number 2023-10308

Dear Complainant and Respondent:

A formal complaint has been filed with the Arizona Registrar of Contractors.

A jobsite inspection is scheduled for October 5, 2023 at 10:00 AM. The Complainant is required to be present. The Respondent’s attendance is requested and encouraged. The Registrar encourages both parties to make a good faith effort to resolve this complaint prior to the jobsite inspection.

COMPLAINANT: 1. Under A.R.S. § 32-1155(D)(1), the Respondent must be allowed, upon request, the opportunity to inspect the work complained of within fifteen (15) days of receiving this notice. If Respondent is not provided an opportunity to inspect the work within the fifteen (15) day time period, the Registrar may be prohibited from taking further action on this complaint. 2. The Registrar may also be precluded from taking further action on this complaint, if the work that is the subject of the complaint is subject to neglect, modification, or abnormal use. A.R.S. § 32-1155(D)(2) 3. You must provide safe access to any area to be inspected. If access to a roof or other elevated area is required, you must provide a means to safely access the area (ladder or manlift as appropriate). Additionally, please secure any animals.

RESPONDENT: 1. Enclosed is a copy of the complaint. Under A.R.S. § 32-1155(D) you must be allowed, upon request, the opportunity to inspect the work complained of within fifteen days of the date of receipt of this notice. 2. To assist the assigned investigator in evaluating the merits of the complaint, please submit a response to the enclosed complaint to the assigned investigator prior to the scheduled inspection. 3. If you do not attend the jobsite inspection, your absence may negatively impact the investigation, and your interests. 4. If a building permit(s) was required for this project, please have the building permit information available at the jobsite inspection.

1700 W. Washington Street, Suite 105 · Phoenix AZ 85007-2812

602.542.1525 · Toll Free 877.692.9762 · roc.az.gov C008 05/21 If either party needs to reschedule the jobsite inspection, please notify the assigned investigator at least three business days prior to the inspection date to schedule a new date and time.

If the parties resolve the complaint prior to the inspection, please notify the assigned investigator in writing and by phone as soon as possible.

Sincerely, Aaron King Aaron King, Investigator (520) 628-6890 [email redacted] 1700 W Washington St, Ste 105 Phoenix, AZ 85007

1700 W. Washington Street, Suite 105 · Phoenix AZ 85007-2812

602.542.1525 · Toll Free 877.692.9762 · roc.az.gov C008 05/21 A Guide to Jobsite Inspections

Purpose of the Jobsite Inspection When the Registrar receives a complaint against a contractor’s license alleging poor workmanship, the Registrar generally schedules a Jobsite Inspection. The Jobsite Inspection serves two purposes: 1. To give the contractor an opportunity to inspect the complaint items; and 2. To give the Registrar an opportunity to determine if the contractor’s work violates Arizona law.

Jobsite Inspection Rights and Responsibilities Access to inspect: The property owner has complete control over who they allow on the property. However, if the Registrar’s investigator or the contractor cannot inspect the work, the Registrar will not move forward with a citation.

Cooperation: Arizona law enables injured parties to seek relief for damages through several paths. When dealing with a licensed contractor, the Registrar of Contractors’ administrative complaint process may serve as one of those possible paths. However, in order to use that path, the Registrar relies on the cooperation of all parties to a complaint.

Minimum workmanship: The Registrar investigates workmanship complaints for compliance with minimum workmanship and professional industry standards. The Registrar does not issue citations for work that meets these standards.

Scope: The scope of the Jobsite Inspection is limited to items listed in the complaint filed with the Registrar’s office. It is the complainant’s responsibility to point out the complaint item(s) and the Investigators role to review the item(s). If the complainant identifies additional workmanship items not listed in the original complaint, they must file an addendum to the complaint. The Registrar’s Investigator may identify additional administrative violations by the contractor (e.g. work performed out of scope of the license and failure to provide a contract that meets requirements set by Arizona law) at the time of the inspection.

The Role of the Investigator At the Jobsite Inspection, the Registrar’s investigator will: ● Only investigate the items listed on the complaint form filed with the Registrar. ● Will gather evidence to make an informed decision about the complaint items.

What to expect after a Jobsite Inspection After doing a Jobsite Inspection, the Registrar’s Investigator will leave the jobsite and review the evidence provided during the inspection. Generally, the investigator does not make any determination at the time of the jobsite inspection regarding whether the allegations listed in the complaint are supported. ● If the allegations are confirmed, the Registrar’s Investigator may issue a Written Directive telling the contractor to correct the poor or incomplete work. ● If the allegations are not confirmed, the Registrar’s Investigator will close the complaint.

Questions? If you have already filed a complaint and it was assigned to an investigator, you are encouraged to contact that investigator directly with the information listed in your jobsite inspection letter. If you have not filed a complaint yet or have not been assigned an investigator, you can reach the Registrar’s compliance department at (877) 692-9762. 1700 W. Washington Street, Suite 105 · Phoenix AZ 85007-2812

602.542.1525 · Toll Free 877.692.9762 · roc.az.gov C008 05/21 A Guide to Written Directives Purpose of the Jobsite Inspection When the Registrar receives a complaint against a contractor’s license, the Registrar generally schedules a Jobsite Inspection. The Jobsite Inspection serves two purposes: 1. To give the contractor an opportunity to inspect the complaint items; and 2. To give the Registrar an opportunity to determine if the contractor’s work violates Arizona law.

What to expect after a Jobsite Inspection After doing a Jobsite Inspection, the Registrar’s Investigator will determine whether the allegations listed in the complaint are supported. ● If the allegations are confirmed, the Registrar’s Investigator may issue a Written Directive telling the contractor to correct the poor or incomplete work. ● If the allegations are not confirmed, the Registrar’s Investigator will close the complaint.

Written Directives Access: In order to use the administrative process offered by the Registrar, a property owner must provide reasonable access to allow the contractor to fix their work as directed by the Registrar in a Written Directive. Complainants may not put any additional, unnecessary restrictions on the Respondent above and beyond the initial contract requirements agreed upon at the beginning of the project. Respondents are required to make repairs on items identified on any Written Directive, not otherwise restricted by local code or HOA limitations. Complainants must make access available to the Respondent to make the required repairs and failure to provide reasonable access may result in the Registrar dismissing the complaint.

Contractor obligations: The Written Directive will set a deadline for compliance. This is the period of time determined by the Investigator as necessary to complete the items listed in the Directive. ● The deadline for compliance assumes the contractor will promptly begin working on the items listed in the Directive. ● Do not wait. Both parties should communicate quickly to schedule the work.

Extensions: If good cause exists to extend this deadline, either party may submit a written request to the Investigator. The Registrar will review requests for extension and determine if the Directive should be extended.

Manner and method of performance: The Registrar does not provide specific instructions for how to correct poor work. A licensed contractor is expected to have the skill and professionalism to complete the work. Moreover, the complainant may not dictate the manner of repair. If the contractor fails to appropriately correct the work according to the contract, the Registrar will issue a citation.

Compliance Inspection: After the Written Directive expires, the Registrar’s Investigator will contact the complainant to determine if the contractor performed any corrective work. ● If the contractor did corrective work, the Investigator may schedule a Compliance Inspection to determine if the poor work is corrected. ● If the contractor did not perform any corrective work, the Registrar’s Investigator will not do a Compliance Inspection and will determine whether to issue a citation based on the administrative record.

1700 W. Washington Street, Suite 105 · Phoenix AZ 85007-2812

602.542.1525 · Toll Free 877.692.9762 · roc.az.gov C008 05/21 Work performed after the directive ends: After the Directive period ends, a property owner may choose to allow the contractor to continue its work. The Registrar encourages parties to work cooperatively, but cannot require a homeowner to continue to allow a contractor access to the property after the Directive period ends in order for the administrative process to continue. Denying access after the Directive ends is not grounds to close or dismiss a complaint.

1700 W. Washington Street, Suite 105 · Phoenix AZ 85007-2812

602.542.1525 · Toll Free 877.692.9762 · roc.az.gov C008 05/21 P 1

JSI PHOTOS P 2

JSI PHOTOS P 3

JSI PHOTOS P 4

JSI PHOTOS P 5

JSI PHOTOS P 6

JSI PHOTOS Complainant: Ken Boldt 3917 N Dorado Ln Casa GrNde, AZ 85122

1700 W. Washington Street, Suite 105 · Phoenix AZ 85007-2812

602.542.1525 · Toll Free 877.692.9762 · roc.az.gov C009 04/21 Respondent: Atlas General LLC 6250 E Cheney Dr Paradise Valley, AZ 85253-3518

1700 W. Washington Street, Suite 105 · Phoenix AZ 85007-2812

602.542.1525 · Toll Free 877.692.9762 · roc.az.gov C009 04/21 October 13, 2023

License No. ROC 277937

Re:Complaint No. 2023-10308

WRITTEN DIRECTIVE FROM THE REGISTRAR

Dear Respondent:

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 October 30, 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 1, 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: #4- Some tiles near patio roofline not sitting properly. Investigator’s Observation: The Complainant identified several roof tiles that were out of line for unknown reason. Vertical and horizontal lines should be reasonably straight unless varied deliberately for effect. There was no effect required and so the varied lines are not supposed to be there. The Respondent will identify the causation and correct by the appropriate means. Governing Rule: Workmanship Rule: ARS §32-1154 (A) (3), namely R4-9-

This means the license is suspended for lack of qualifying party, lack of bond, nonrenewal, Recovery Fund payout, or for any reason listed in A.R.S. § 32-1124(F). 1700 W. Washington Street, Suite 105 · Phoenix AZ 85007-2812

602.542.1525 · Toll Free 877.692.9762 · roc.az.gov C009 04/21 108, Poor work not performed in accordance with professional industry standards.

ITEMS NOT REQUIRING CORRECTION The following complaint items require no action by the Respondent:

Complaint Item: #1-Roofing underpayment (underlayment) not installed correctly. Investigator’s Observation: The roof is currently fully installed so I am unable to physically see the underlayment. Workmanship standards for improper underlayment say that since the underlayment is really the waterproof barrier, it should be of the specified material and properly installed. Photographs were shown as a reference only. Without definitive evidence showing that the underlayment is not properly installed, the complaint item is therefore unverified. No action is required by the Respondent. Governing Rule: N/A

Complaint Item: #2- Flashing Jacks around solar posts were destroyed by installers. Castile refused to replace them. Investigator’s Observation: The roof is fully installed. None of the flashings are able to be seen due to them being in place on the roof, and photos were used to describe the damages. During the inspection the Complainant confirmed that the Respondent had replaced 6 of the flashings indicating that damage was done, and repaired by the Respondent. The Complainant reasoned that if 6 flashings needed replacing then all of them would need to be replaced as well. Without seeing additional ones to confirm this, there is no evidence to support that there are ‘flashing jacks around solar posts that are destroyed’ and in need of correction. No action is required by the Respondent. Governing Rule: N/A

1700 W. Washington Street, Suite 105 · Phoenix AZ 85007-2812

602.542.1525 · Toll Free 877.692.9762 · roc.az.gov C009 04/21 Complaint Item: #3- Vent stack flashings not installed properly. Investigator’s Observation: The roof is fully installed which prevents us from seeing the flashings. There were pictures provided by both the Complainant and the Respondent to show the work done on these areas, which were used for reference. The Complainant was concerned that the seal at the vents were not sealed correctly and would end up leaking. The Respondent showed and explained how they had multiple levels of sealing and how they conducted their work. The discussion failed to come to an agreed upon conclusion and there was no way to see the flashing seals physically on site. There was no way to confirm if the area is not installed properly and due to this, no action is required by the Respondent. Governing Rule: N/A

Please direct all questions regarding this Directive to the undersigned Investigator.

Sincerely,

Aaron King Aaron King, Investigator (520) 628-6890 [email redacted] 1700 W Washington St, Ste 105 Phoenix, AZ 85007

1700 W. Washington Street, Suite 105 · Phoenix AZ 85007-2812

602.542.1525 · Toll Free 877.692.9762 · roc.az.gov C009 04/21 Complainant: Ken Boldt 3917 N Dorado Ln Casa GrNde, AZ 85122

1700 W. Washington Street, Suite 105 · Phoenix AZ 85007-2812

602.542.1525 · Toll Free 877.692.9762 · roc.az.gov C009 04/21 Respondent: Atlas General LLC 6250 E Cheney Dr Paradise Valley, AZ 85253-3518

1700 W. Washington Street, Suite 105 · Phoenix AZ 85007-2812

602.542.1525 · Toll Free 877.692.9762 · roc.az.gov C009 04/21 October 13, 2023

License No. ROC 277937

Re:Complaint No. 2023-10308

WRITTEN DIRECTIVE FROM THE REGISTRAR

Dear Respondent:

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

602.542.1525 · Toll Free 877.692.9762 · roc.az.gov C009 04/21 108, Poor work not performed in accordance with professional industry standards.

ITEMS NOT REQUIRING CORRECTION The following complaint items require no action by the Respondent:

1700 W. Washington Street, Suite 105 · Phoenix AZ 85007-2812

Please direct all questions regarding this Directive to the undersigned Investigator.

Sincerely,

Aaron King Aaron King, Investigator (520) 628-6890 [email redacted] 1700 W Washington St, Ste 105 Phoenix, AZ 85007

1700 W. Washington Street, Suite 105 · Phoenix AZ 85007-2812

602.542.1525 · Toll Free 877.692.9762 · roc.az.gov C009 04/21 Complainant: Ken Boldt 3917 N Dorado Ln Casa GrNde, AZ 85122

1700 W. Washington Street, Suite 105 · Phoenix AZ 85007-2812

602.542.1525 · Toll Free 877.692.9762 · roc.az.gov C008 05/21 Respondent: Atlas General LLC 6250 E Cheney Dr Paradise Valley, AZ 85253-3518

1700 W. Washington Street, Suite 105 · Phoenix AZ 85007-2812

602.542.1525 · Toll Free 877.692.9762 · roc.az.gov C008 05/21 November 27, 2023

Jobsite Inspection Notice Re: Complaint Number 2023-10308

Dear Complainant and Respondent:

A formal complaint has been filed with the Arizona Registrar of Contractors.

A jobsite inspection is scheduled for November 30, 2023 at 10:00 AM. The Complainant is required to be present. The Respondent’s attendance is requested and encouraged. The Registrar encourages both parties to make a good faith effort to resolve this complaint prior to the jobsite inspection.

1700 W. Washington Street, Suite 105 · Phoenix AZ 85007-2812

If the parties resolve the complaint prior to the inspection, please notify the assigned investigator in writing and by phone as soon as possible.

Sincerely, Aaron King Aaron King, Investigator (520) 628-6890 [email redacted] 1700 W Washington St, Ste 105 Phoenix, AZ 85007

1700 W. Washington Street, Suite 105 · Phoenix AZ 85007-2812

602.542.1525 · Toll Free 877.692.9762 · roc.az.gov C008 05/21 A Guide to Jobsite Inspections

1700 W. Washington Street, Suite 105 · Phoenix AZ 85007-2812

602.542.1525 · Toll Free 877.692.9762 · roc.az.gov C008 05/21 P 1

JSI PHOTOS P 2

JSI PHOTOS P 3

JSI PHOTOS P 4

JSI PHOTOS P 5

JSI PHOTOS P 6

JSI PHOTOS P 7

JSI PHOTOS P 8

JSI PHOTOS P 9

JSI PHOTOS P 10

JSI PHOTOS P 11

JSI PHOTOS P 12

JSI PHOTOS P 13

JSI PHOTOS P 14

JSI PHOTOS P 15

JSI PHOTOS P 16

JSI PHOTOS P 17

JSI PHOTOS P 18

JSI PHOTOS P 19

JSI PHOTOS P 20

JSI PHOTOS P 21

JSI PHOTOS P 22

JSI PHOTOS P 23

JSI PHOTOS P 24

JSI PHOTOS P 25

JSI PHOTOS P 26

JSI PHOTOS Complainant: Ken Boldt 3917 N Dorado Ln Casa GrNde, AZ 85122

1700 W. Washington Street, Suite 105 · Phoenix AZ 85007-2812

602.542.1525 · Toll Free 877.692.9762 · roc.az.gov C009 04/21 Respondent: Atlas General LLC 6250 E Cheney Dr Paradise Valley, AZ 85253-3518

1700 W. Washington Street, Suite 105 · Phoenix AZ 85007-2812

602.542.1525 · Toll Free 877.692.9762 · roc.az.gov C009 04/21 December 11, 2023

License No. ROC 277937

Re:Complaint No. 2023-10308

WRITTEN DIRECTIVE FROM THE REGISTRAR

Dear Respondent:

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

602.542.1525 · Toll Free 877.692.9762 · roc.az.gov C009 04/21 would be installed. The roof shows that the old one is still in place with the new one on top. The invoice also shows the removal of old underlayment as well. This means that the installation was not done according to contract. There should be no second layer and there is. Respondent shall complete project per original contract agreement, properly executed change orders, verbal agreements, local building codes and manufacturers installation instructions. Additionally, the manufacturers installation instructions have stated that for UDL 50, that staples are not to be used as they will void the warranty, and staples were used in this installation. The exact wording states, “DO NOT USE STAPLES: The use of staples to penetrate UDL50 will void warranty.” Multiple examples show that staples were used instead of the nails required in the manufacturer’s directions. The entire roof warranty is voided with stapled UDL50. Therefore the Respondent will correct by the appropriate means. Governing Rule: Workmanship Rule: ARS §32-1154 (A) (3), namely R4-9- 108, Poor work not performed in accordance with professional industry standards.

Complaint Item: #2- Flashing Jacks around solar posts were destroyed by installers. Castile refused to replace them. Investigator’s Observation: When referencing the Tile Roofing Institute and the Eagles Version for the Eagle Tile used on this home, the industry standard is shown to require pre-flashing. The area is supposed to put a pre- flashing on and the Respondent didn't put the pre-flashing, they just sealed around it. The Complainant was able to show that no pre-flashing was used by removing tiles and allowing us to see inside. It is the Respondents responsibility to complete work that meets codes and minimum workmanship standards. The Respondent will need to correct by the appropriate means.

1700 W. Washington Street, Suite 105 · Phoenix AZ 85007-2812

602.542.1525 · Toll Free 877.692.9762 · roc.az.gov C009 04/21 Governing Rule: Workmanship Rule: ARS §32-1154 (A) (3), namely R4-9- 108, Poor work not performed in accordance with professional industry standards.

Complaint Item: #3- Vent stack flashings not installed properly. Investigator’s Observation: At the vent flashings it is required that there be an adhesive weather blocking material used over the tile and under the flashing. This is described in the Tile Roofing Institute, Installation Manual. The adhesive also helps to prevent the edge from flipping up in strong winds. Multiple flashings were standing up due to missing adhesive or by having old adhesive. Old adhesive is present in areas but it appears they were not re- sealed. Some of the flashings that are bent, may have cracked at the bend now and should be reviewed for replacement. The Respondent will need to correct by the appropriate means. Governing Rule: Workmanship Rule: ARS §32-1154 (A) (3), namely R4-9- 108, Poor work not performed in accordance with professional industry standards.

Complaint Item: #4- Some tiles near patio roofline not sitting properly. Investigator’s Observation: This is forwarded from the prior written directive issued in previous inspection. The Complainant identified several roof tiles that were out of line for unknown reason. Vertical and horizontal lines should be reasonably straight unless varied deliberately for effect. There was no effect required and so the varied lines are not supposed to be there. The Respondent will identify the causation and correct by the appropriate means. Governing Rule: Workmanship Rule: ARS §32-1154 (A) (3), namely R4-9- 108, Poor work not performed in accordance with professional industry standards.

1700 W. Washington Street, Suite 105 · Phoenix AZ 85007-2812

602.542.1525 · Toll Free 877.692.9762 · roc.az.gov C009 04/21 ITEMS NOT REQUIRING CORRECTION The following complaint items require no action by the Respondent:

-NONE-

Please direct all questions regarding this Directive to the undersigned Investigator.

Sincerely,

Aaron King Aaron King, Investigator (520) 628-6890 [email redacted] 1700 W Washington St, Ste 105 Phoenix, AZ 85007

1700 W. Washington Street, Suite 105 · Phoenix AZ 85007-2812

602.542.1525 · Toll Free 877.692.9762 · roc.az.gov C009 04/21 Jobsite Inspection Notes

Case No.: 2023-10308 Investigator: Aaron King Inspection Date: November 30, 2023 Inspection Time: 10:00 AM

Complainant: Ken Boldt Respondent: Atlas General LLC Not Present: Not Present: *

Jobsite General Notes: JSI photos taken with my Google Pixel Phone camera. JSI audio recorded with my Google Phone Recorder Application. JSI photos and audio have been placed into the ROC complaint file.

Complaint Item: #1- Roofing underpayment not installed correctly. Investigator’s Observation: This is a re-inspection as the Complainant has provided new information to help the investigation. On the inspection the Complainant had a third party roofing company on site to help show details related to the roof. On the inspection related to the roofing underlayment, several things were noted. First, the contract between the Complainant and the Respondent stated that the underlayment would be removed and a new one would be installed. The roof shows that the old one is still in place with the new one on top. The invoice also shows the removal of old underlayment as well. This means that the installation was not done according to contract. There should be no second layer and there is. Respondent shall complete project per original contract agreement, properly executed change orders, verbal agreements, local building codes and manufacturers installation instructions. Additionally, the manufacturers installation instructions have stated that for UDL 50, that staples are not to be used as they will void the warranty, and staples were used in this installation. The exact wording states, “DO NOT USE STAPLES: The use of staples to penetrate UDL50 will void warranty.” Multiple examples show that staples were used instead of the nails required in the manufacturer’s directions. The entire roof warranty is voided with stapled UDL50. Therefore the Respondent will correct by the appropriate means. Governing Rule: Workmanship Rule: ARS §32-1154 (A) (3), namely R4-9-108, Poor work not performed in accordance with professional industry standards.

1700 W. Washington Street, Suite 105 · Phoenix AZ 85007-2812

602.542.1525 · Toll Free 877.692.9762 · roc.az.gov RCC100 08/19

Complaint Item: #2- Flashing Jacks around solar posts were destroyed by installers. Castile refused to replace them. Investigator’s Observation: When referencing the Tile Roofing Institute and the Eagles Version for the Eagle Tile used on this home, the industry standard is shown to require pre-flashing. The area is supposed to put a pre-flashing on and the Respondent didn't put the pre-flashing, they just sealed around it. The Complainant was able to show that no pre-flashing was used by removing tiles and allowing us to see inside. It is the Respondents responsibility to complete work that meets codes and minimum workmanship standards. The Respondent will need to correct by the appropriate means. Governing Rule: Workmanship Rule: ARS §32-1154 (A) (3), namely R4-9-108, Poor work not performed in accordance with professional industry standards.

Complaint Item: #3- Vent stack flashings not installed properly. Investigator’s Observation: At the vent flashings it is required that there be an adhesive weather blocking material used over the tile and under the flashing. This is described in the Tile Roofing Institute, Installation Manual. The adhesive also helps to prevent the edge from flipping up in strong winds. Multiple flashings were standing up due to missing adhesive or by having old adhesive. Old adhesive is present in areas but it appears they were not re-sealed. Some of the flashings that are bent, may have cracked at the bend now and should be reviewed for replacement. The Respondent will need to correct by the appropriate means. Governing Rule: Workmanship Rule: ARS §32-1154 (A) (3), namely R4-9-108, Poor work not performed in accordance with professional industry standards.

Complaint Item: #4- Some tiles near patio roofline not sitting properly. Investigator’s Observation: This is forwarded from the prior written directive issued in previous inspection. The Complainant identified several roof tiles that were out of line for unknown reason. Vertical and horizontal lines should be reasonably straight unless varied deliberately for effect. There was no effect required and so the varied lines are not supposed to be there. The Respondent will identify the causation and correct by the appropriate means. Governing Rule: Workmanship Rule: ARS §32-1154 (A) (3), namely R4-9-108, Poor work not performed in accordance with professional industry standards.

1700 W. Washington Street, Suite 105 · Phoenix AZ 85007-2812

602.542.1525 · Toll Free 877.692.9762 · roc.az.gov RCC100 08/19

P 1

JSI PHOTOS P 2

JSI PHOTOS P 3

JSI PHOTOS P 4

JSI PHOTOS P 5

JSI PHOTOS P 6

JSI PHOTOS P 7

JSI PHOTOS P 8

JSI PHOTOS P 9

JSI PHOTOS P 10

JSI PHOTOS P 11

JSI PHOTOS P 12

JSI PHOTOS P 13

JSI PHOTOS P 14

JSI PHOTOS P 15

JSI PHOTOS P 16

JSI PHOTOS P 17

JSI PHOTOS P 18

JSI PHOTOS P 19

JSI PHOTOS P 20

JSI PHOTOS P 21

JSI PHOTOS P 22

JSI PHOTOS P 23

JSI PHOTOS P 24

JSI PHOTOS P 25

JSI PHOTOS P 26

JSI PHOTOS P 27

JSI PHOTOS REGISTRAR OF CONTRACTORS OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA

Ken Boldt, Case No. 2023-10308 COMPLAINANT v. Atlas General LLC, CITATION License No. ROC 277937, RESPONDENT.

The Registrar issues this Citation to Atlas General LLC (“Respondent”) under A.R.S. § 32-1155(A). If Respondent fails to answer this Citation by February 9, 2024, then under A.R.S. § 32-1155(C), Respondent’s failure to answer may be deemed an admission of the act or acts charged in the underlying complaint, and the Registrar may then suspend or revoke Respondent’s license(s). THE WRITTEN COMPLAINT On September 5, 2023, Ken Boldt (“Complainant”) filed a written complaint with the Registrar. A copy of that Complaint is attached to this Citation. A FORMAL STATEMENT OF THE CHARGES AGAINST RESPONDENT The Registrar investigated this matter and finds cause to charge Respondent with violation(s) of Title 32, Chapter 10 of the Arizona Revised Statutes. Respondent is charged with violating:

Charge :1 A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) - R4-9-108(a)

Violation of any rule adopted by the Registrar; Namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(a): A contractor shall perform all work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

of 5

1700 W. Washington Street, Suite 105 ꞏ Phoenix AZ 85007-2812 602.542.1525 ꞏ Toll Free 877.692.9762 ꞏ roc.az.gov Lg101 8/21 Charge: 2 A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22) Failure to take appropriate corrective action to comply with this chapter or with rules adopted pursuant to this chapter without valid justification within a reasonable period of time after receiving a written directive from the Registrar. The written directive shall set forth the time within which the contractor is to complete the remedial action. The time permitted for compliance shall not be less than fifteen days from the date of issuance of the directive. A license shall not be revoked or suspended nor shall any other penalty be imposed for a violation of this paragraph until after a hearing has been held.

If the matter proceeds to a hearing and the administrative law judge determines that any

of the charges listed above are supported by a preponderance of the evidence, then

Respondent’s license(s) may be subject to suspension or revocation, and Respondent may be

subject to other penalties provided by law, including civil penalties under A.R.S. §§ 32-1154(E)

and (F).

FILING A WRITTEN ANSWER

Respondent must appear by filing with the Registrar a written answer to the citation and

complaint showing cause, if any, why Respondent’s license(s) should not be suspended or

revoked. A.R.S. § 32-1155(A). Respondent’s written answer should contain the heading

“Written Answer to Citation and Complaint” and should include the case number, which is

Case No. 2023-10308.

How to File a Written Answer: Respondent’s written answer may be submitted in the

following ways:

In-Person: 1700 W. Washington St., Ste. 105, Phoenix, Arizona, 85007-2812 Mail: P.O. Box 18244, Phoenix, Arizona, 85005-8244 Email: [email redacted]

The Registrar’s normal office hours are 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday.

If Respondent submits a written answer by mail, it is not filed with the Registrar until the

Registrar actually receives it.

of 5

1700 W. Washington Street, Suite 105 ꞏ Phoenix AZ 85007-2812 602.542.1525 ꞏ Toll Free 877.692.9762 ꞏ roc.az.gov Lg101 8/21 Deadline for Filing a Written Answer: Respondent must file a written answer with the Registrar no later than February 9, 2024. This deadline is calculated under A.R.S. §§ 32-1155(A) and (B), which provides a deadline ten days after service of the Citation. Service of the Citation and Complaint is complete five days after the Registrar mails a copy of the Citation and Complaint to Respondent’s latest address of record in the Registrar’s office. Consequences for Failing to File a Written Answer: If Respondent fails to answer, Respondent’s failure may be deemed an admission of the act or acts charged in the written complaint. A.R.S. § 32-1155(C). The Registrar may then suspend or revoke Respondent’s license(s). THE ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING If Respondent files a timely written answer contesting any charges in the Complaint, then the Registrar will request the Office of Administrative Hearings set a date for an administrative hearing and will notify all the parties at least 30 days before that hearing. A.R.S. § 41-1092.05(D). INVESTIGATOR’S APPEARANCE AS A WITNESS The Registrar’s assigned investigator will appear as a witness at the hearing. If either party demands the attendance at the hearing of any other person, that party must obtain and serve a subpoena in compliance with the rules and processes established by the Office of Administrative Hearings. RESPONDENT’S RIGHT TO REQUEST AN INFORMAL SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE Under A.R.S. § 41-1092.06, if Respondent submits a request to the Registrar for an informal settlement conference, the Registrar must hold a conference within 15 days after receiving the request. Respondent’s request for an informal settlement conference must be in writing and must be filed no later than 20 days before the administrative hearing. A.R.S. § 41-

of 5

1700 W. Washington Street, Suite 105 ꞏ Phoenix AZ 85007-2812 602.542.1525 ꞏ Toll Free 877.692.9762 ꞏ roc.az.gov Lg101 8/21 1092.06(A). The Registrar will not close or settle any case without both parties’ appearance at the Settlement Conference. The parties participating in the settlement conference must have the authority to settle the case and must waive their right to object to the participation of the Registrar’s settlement conference representative in the final administrative decision. A.R.S. § 41-1092.06(B). Any statements, either written or oral, made by the parties at the conference, including a written document, created or expressed solely for the purpose of settlement negotiations, are inadmissible in the administrative hearing. A.R.S. § 41-1092.06(B). RESPONDENT’S PRIOR RECORD Under A.A.C. R4-9-117, in determining the appropriate discipline, the administrative law judge and the Registrar may consider not only facts in the current case, but also facts in prior cases and any documents regarding Respondent on file with the Registrar. Respondent’s prior disciplinary record and current license(s) status may be considered as a mitigating or aggravating factor in determining the appropriate discipline. EVIDENTIARY DISCLAIMER By issuing this Citation, the Registrar is directing Respondent to file a written answer to the Citation and Complaint, showing cause, if any, why Respondent’s license(s) should not be suspended or revoked. A.R.S. § 32-1155(A). This Citation does not constitute proof that any charge or allegation in Complainant’s written complaint is in fact true. This Citation does not constitute proof that Respondent violated any statutory provision or rule adopted by the Registrar. Dated January 25, 2024. By: /s/ Mary Coyne Mary Coyne, CP Paralegal Manager Legal Department Arizona Registrar of Contractors of 5

1700 W. Washington Street, Suite 105 ꞏ Phoenix AZ 85007-2812 602.542.1525 ꞏ Toll Free 877.692.9762 ꞏ roc.az.gov Lg101 8/21 COPY of the foregoing mailed by Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested, January 25, 2024 to: Respondent Certified Mail No: [number redacted] Atlas General LLC 6250 E Cheney Dr. Paradise Valley, AZ 85253-3518

Copy mailed by USPS First Class mail this same date to:

Respondent Atlas General LLC 6250 E Cheney Dr. Paradise Valley, AZ 85253-3518 Complainant Ken Boldt 3917 N Dorado Ln. Casa Grande, AZ 85122 Copy sent electronically this same date to: Respondent at email address on record with the Registrar Complainant at email address on record with the Registrar

Case No. 2023-10308

of 5

1700 W. Washington Street, Suite 105 ꞏ Phoenix AZ 85007-2812 602.542.1525 ꞏ Toll Free 877.692.9762 ꞏ roc.az.gov Lg101 8/21 Licensed Complaint Form Departmental Use Only For Current or Suspended Licensees 2023-10308

Person Filing Complaint Full Name (First Middle Last) Business Name (if a licensed contractor or supplier) ROC License Number(s) (if any)

Ken Boldt Mailing Address (Enter jobsite in Contract/Project section) City State Zip

3917 N Dorado Ln Casa Grande Arizona 85122 Phone Number Email

(303) 619-4686 [email redacted] I consent to receive communications electronically in connection with this case Name of Attorney (if any)

Street Address of Attorney City State Zip

Phone Number of Attorney Email of Attorney

Contractor Information Name (as shown on contract/invoice) ROC License Number(s)

Atlas General LLC ROC 277937 Street Address City State Zip

6250 E Cheney Dr Paradise Valley AZ 85253-3518 Phone Number Email

[number redacted] [email redacted] Name of Person(s) Representing License

Alex Anau Contract/Project Information Contract Date Contract Amount Amount Paid

May 11, 2023 $12,018.85 $5,000.00 Date Work Started Date Work Stopped Date Work Was Completed

May 1, 2023 May 17, 2023 May 17, 2023 Close of Escrow (New Home) Move-In Date (New-Home)

Jobsite Street Address City State Zip

3917 N Dorado Ln Casa Grande AZ 85122 Name of Construction Site Owner Construction Site Name (if applicable)

Kenneth Boldt Phone Number of Construction Site Owner Email of Construction Site Owner

[number redacted] [email redacted] This complaint is for Poor Work I have contacted the contractor by Phone/Text;Email Have you filed a complaint in court? No

RCC099 12/05/18 Page 1 of 2 Licensed Complaint Form Departmental Use Only For Current or Suspended Licensees 2023-10308

Has any work been corrected? No

The contract was Both All change orders were Both This project was Residential This project involved Repair

A building permit was obtained by N/A List and briefly describe each complaint item (Please do not write "see attached" or use additional pages unless necessary to further describe issues or list more complaint items) (limited to 100 characters per line)

Roofing underpayment not installed correctly. ; Flashing Jacks around solar posts were destroyed by installers. Castile refused to replace them.; Vent stack flashings not installed properly.; Some tiles near patio roofline not sitting properly.

Signature I declare under penalty of perjury that the information and documents contained on this Complaint Form, included with this complaint, or hereafter submitted in support of this complaint are true and accurate to the best of my knowledge. I will assist in the investigation or in the prosecution of the contractor or other parties, and will, if necessary, attend hearings and testify to facts. Printed Name Signature Date

Ken Boldt \complainant1\ \complainantd1\

RCC099 12/05/18 Page 2 of 2 Received 2/9/2024 ROC Legal

Atlas General, LLC 6250 E Cheney Dr Paradise Valley, AZ 85253-3518

February 9th, 2024

Arizona Registrar of Contractors 1700 W Washington St, #105 Phoenix, AZ 85007-2812

I think it’s important to the case as a whole for everyone to understand the demands made by the Complainant during the job and our willingness to meet them and the way the complaint was handled by the RoC Investigator from start to finish before getting into the actual 4 points listed in the final complaint. To put it lightly, communication was extremely poor with our assigned investigator, and then a great degree of details were just omitted or ignored and then just verbally declined as we got closer to the end. I’ll explain chronologically.

From the beginning, Ken was somewhat demanding on how he wanted things done to ensure that his roof didn’t have issues in the future. He had leaks that were likely related to his solar causing his roof to fail prematurely, so he wanted to fix various issues that he thought would make them better. Ken expressed concern numerous times about how the workers were handling things during the job. Some items we agreed on and corrected, and others were non- issues, but regardless, we made best efforts to correct them to make Ken happy. This included replacing 6 solar roof jacks that Ken thought had been bent too much by the workers, re-cutting ALL the tiles that sat over the solar roof jacks, cutting the underlayment in a very specific way around those roof jacks to ensure a tight seal, sealing the roof jacks where they met the underlayment both under AND over with roofing tar, placing the new tiles that were a different color UNDER the solar and in a pattern so that the roof still looked uniform, and then sealing the NEW smaller holes we cut in the tile with mortar for a final seal. We’re happy to go above and beyond for a customer if it makes them more content and secure in that their roof is going to leak, and Ken likely has one of the most secure roofs we’ve ever put on due to all these extra items. Despite all of this, Ken was demanding and controlling throughout the entire project even insisting that the workers couldn’t start some days unless their crew leader was there. We went above and beyond to make Ken Boldt happy with his roof, and in the end it still wasn’t good enough. *I will provide e-mails supporting all of these claims if they’re not already present in the file once I receive it.

The last item that Ken had a problem with was the 2 or 3 tiles not sitting correctly on the patio, and the few flashings that weren’t sitting correctly. We agreed to replace the few flashings not sitting properly, and then to see what we could do about the tiles on the patio roofline. The tiles Received 2/9/2024 ROC Legal

on the patio appeared to be caused by a framing issue, but something we intended to look further at. It took us a bit to get back over there, and when the guys had time to come fix these last few items, he wasn’t interested in having us fix it nor pay the final bill. We currently have received a payment of $5,000, and have an open balance due of $7,018.85. Ken has offered to settle on his non-leaking roof for $15,000, with no negotiation. He has been adamant that he will not pay the open balance, and has requested some truly unique work requests if and when he permits the alleged items to be repaired.

The first written directive was issued and ruled on only one item – the tiles on the patio. Regardless, we agreed to also repair the flashings that weren’t sitting properly in addition to this. Ken was not happy with this initial complaint and refused to let us on property to fix these two items. When the complaint was first issued on 9/14/23, I sent Aaron King a written response the same day with details on each item, and included photographic and e-mail evidence. I also asked Aaron King if there was a way for us to get more concrete rulings on the other items so we could put all items to rest. I received no response to this e-mail. We tried to schedule with Ken on 10/23/23 a week before the directive deadline and were refused on site. On this same day, I forwarded this e-mail to Aaron King letting him know we were being denied on property to fix said items. I received no response to this e-mail. Aaron King then e-mailed us on 11/8/23 stating that he had seen no communication from us on fixing said items since we were past the deadline. I informed him of both e-mails I had sent him weeks prior that had gone unanswered, and again received no response.

We heard nothing for roughly a month, and then on 11/27/23 at 1:32 PM we’re told a re- inspection is scheduled less than 72 hours later. We did also get a letter in the mail, but by the time the letter showed up, the date had already passed. Our representative showed up roughly minutes after the scheduled time and everyone was gone. I think this is an insufficient timeframe and insufficient notice to schedule something so important, but just what happened.

A second directive was issued on 12/11/23 that was about 90% different from the first. It should also be noted here that when the second directive was sent over, we received NO other documentation – none of the photos nor the audio recording that I found out 45 days later was taken. I had to beg with someone in RoC legal on 1/29/24 to send them so I could get at least the photos. Issues that were not even brought up in the initial complaint were now being noted as items needed correction. The new items presented were the staples, no pre-flashing, and the 2 layers of underlayment – all new and not present in the first directive, nor in the initial complaint. The problems with Investigator Aaron King and Assistant Chief Jeff Wills started here. I attempted to remit extremely detailed evidence on all of these points since we couldn’t at the meeting. On 12/16, I e-mailed Aaron King some evidence that using staples to secure BATTENS is a perfectly accepted practice by Owens Corning. I included a transcript of my conversation from Levi Brooks, a local Owens Corning representative, of him saying as much. I also included a link to their “Concrete and Clay Roof Tile Installation Manual” that was used against us where it also says crown staples can be used to secure BATTENS. (https://eagleroofing.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/TRI-Installation-Guide-2015-1.pdf) I sent Received 2/9/2024 ROC Legal

another e-mail with photos after we had removed all the tiles showing that pre-flashing was present on ALL of the solar jack penetrations, and the regular penetrations. I received no response.

On 12/21/23 and 12/22/23 I called the RoC in an attempt to get a response from Investigator Aaron King. On 12/23, I e-mailed Aaron King a more official response that addressed all the items in the second directive as instructed by who I spoke to at the RoC. On 12/27/23, only a few days away from our correction deadline, Aaron King finally responded and refused to look at the new evidence provided. I then reached out to Assistant Chief Wes Ellington and was told “You chose not to attend the inspection, then chose not to provide this info until the new directive had been issued on 12/11. Your choice at this point is to either do the corrective work from the directive, or do nothing and wait for your opportunity to request a hearing.” If anyone puts the two directives next to one another, they’d realize it was impossible for us to remit this evidence. The first directive literally only mentioned a flashing issue and left all the other items up in the air, why would I provide evidence on staples, a second layer, and pre-flashing if they literally weren’t mentioned in the first directive? We were offered 0 opportunity to provide a response for the second directive, and then told we weren’t allowed to repeatedly. Both directives are incorrect: One due to a partial reading of the use of staples, and the other due to an assumption that the primary jacks were not installed. We provide clear evidence that staples are approved for securing battons and a photo showing all primary jacks installed. This evidence was ignored.

I had to reach out to Chief Jeff Wills who finally said he would force Aaron King to review the evidence I submitted. Aaron King then finally sends an e-mail on 1/3/24 asking if he has all the evidence correct. I’m attaching my response – it was at this point that I felt working with him was a bit hopeless. He didn’t include some incredibly crucial documents and explanations which just proved his unwillingness to review or consider our response. Even at this point, Aaron King only stated he was going to add our new evidence to the complaint, and not review it. I again reached out to Chief Jeff Wills and asked for some kind of review (which we thought was only fair). I was told it happened, and that it changed nothing, but I’m not sure how true that is. We still maintain the position that fixing the lifted tiles on the patio and installing new roof jacks on the regular flashings that are lifted is all that needs to be fixed. I pushed this point hard as we weren’t unwilling to fix nothing, and knew that if it went to legal it was either everything or nothing which is not what we wanted. We weren’t left much choice after dealing with Aaron King and Wes Ellington.

I’ll address the items in the second directive in order here –

Directive Item 1 Received 2/9/2024 ROC Legal

The possibility of leaving the original layer of underlayment if in OK condition was discussed prior to the job, and on site with Ken Boldt many times. It’s a good backup for when the new layer starts to fail in the future. There’s an e-mail that I sent him where I mention this is something that we may do, and it was discussed on site with him numerous times by Yonathan Benitez (our crew leader). There are multiple recorded call transcripts between Alex and Yonathan while we were working on this property where Yonathan and I discuss the second layer of underlayment and that Ken is aware. I think it’s also pretty clear that this was never a problem for Ken because in ALL of the e-mails he sent us while we were on site AND after (which was dozens of e-mails, and he claims to have 200 photos), he never once mentioned the 2nd layer despite it being visible in all of the photos he took. He liked the idea of having the extra layer just to be safe, and as discussed earlier, he was a fan of lots of extra layers (all the extra sealing we did around the solar roof jacks for example). We investigated the roof for damaged wood and severely damaged underlayment and upon not really finding any, we opted to leave it for the extra protection and Ken was informed. The e-mail and conversation transcripts between Yonathan and I provide clear evidence that this was an agreed part of this job, and that Ken was aware that this was being left. An e-mail was also sent to Ken which discussed that we would be leaving the original layer on the roof, and installing the new underlayment on top as this was confirmed with Yonathan multiple times.

The staples in the underlayment voiding the warranty for Owens Corning UDL-50. If the staples are used as a PRIMARY FASTENER (so if they directly penetrate the underlayment), then it voids the warranty. However, staples are an approved method of securing the BATTENS to the roof. Using staples on just the BATTENS does not void the warranty. We provided a letter from Owens Corning directly stating that this is an acceptable practice. In the “Concrete and Clay Roof Tile Installation Manual” referenced in the second directive and above, they also state securing battens with crown staples (what was used) is an approved practice.

Directive Item 2

Item #2 claims that there is no pre-flashing on any of the solar roof jacks or on the regular penetrations, yet there are plenty of photos that we provided, and that the Complainant sent during the job, that shows pre-flashing was present on all of the solar roof jacks and regular roof jacks. I provided some of these photos as evidence. None of these were removed and were left in place. We did apply extra seals, but not as a replacement of the pre-flashing. The photos show clearly that all the penetrations had them present.

Directive Item 3

Item #3 we agreed to fix and replace. Commenting on the bent flashings, this metal roof flashings are made to be bent. When you buy them from the roofing distributor, they literally come ALREADY BENT. They do that as it’s easier for them to store them, but it shows that Received 2/9/2024 ROC Legal

they’re manufactured to be maneuverable. Regardless, we agreed to replace the few flashings that are coming up, and we replaced 6 of the solar roof jacks that he asked us to. We were not allowed on property to fix this after the first directive.

Directive Item 4

Item #4 we agreed to investigate, and then fix if we could find an appropriate way to fix it. The cause of this is the joining of the patio to the main roofline – the wood on the patio is slightly higher than the roofline where it meets, so it’s slightly lifted. It’s caused by the framing and has been this way since before we visited. Regardless, we also said we can likely fix this by adjusting those tiles in a specific way so that they lay flat. It’s minor, and we’re happy to fix this item, but were also not allowed on property to fix this after the first directive.

We look forward to the review of our response to these incorrect complaints, and an updated directive so we can repair the items in the original complaint. Received 2/9/2024 ROC Legal Received 2/9/2024 ROC Legal Received 2/9/2024 ROC Legal Received 2/9/2024 ROC Legal Received 2/9/2024 ROC Legal

KEN BOLDT 3917 N Dorado Ln. Casa Grande, AZ 303-619-4686 [email redacted]

December 12, 2023

Alfonso Larriva Alex Anau

Atlas General, LLC DBA Castile Roofing 6250 E Cheney Dr. Paradise Valley, AZ. 85253-3518

Dear Alfonso and Alex,

By this time I am certain both of you have read the latest directive from the Arizona ROC, dated 12/11/2023. The following is a very lengthy and detailed letter but it is in your best interests to read to the end. An ROC directive is giving Castile until 01/02/2024 to comply with their findings. As you are well aware, Aaron King from the ROC did an initial inspection of my complaints at 10:00 am on 10/05/2023. Your “foreman” Yonathan attended that meeting. It was noted at that meeting that Castile had finished the roof and Sunstream solar had re-installed our solar panels. His findings were not in your favor or mine, he only ruled he could not physically see the complaint. My main complaint with Castile was the proper installation of the underlayment and 60 solar post jacks that your guys destroyed. Aaron made the decision to not get on my roof to verify my complaint as he stated those issues were covered up by the roofing tiles and the solar panels. Since he could not visually verify my complaint his directive ruling on 10/13/2023 was the following…….”The roof is fully installed so I am unable to physically see the underlayment, and without definitive evidence showing the underlayment was not properly installed the complaint item is therefore “UNVERIFIED”. Therefore Aaron made a directive on the underlayment and destroyed solar post jacks as…. NO action required by respondent AT THIS TIME. I was told by Aaron at that time the ROC would reevaluate at a later date if I could remove some tiles for his visual inspection. I paid a local well known roofing company $300.00 to inspect the roof after the ROC was here. I had already verified the inferior Received 2/9/2024 ROC Legal

work your company did with the Casa Grande building inspectors, but I wanted a detailed report. The company I hired did an hour long inspection. Their report stated the entire job needed to be re-done. When I went to their office to get a more detailed report, the owner stated he did not want to say anymore because he could see this amateurish job ending in litigation and he was far to busy to spend his time in a courtroom and asked to be removed from the case. I complied.

On 12/01/2023 I contracted with Kyle at K&M Roofing to do a complete and comprehensive report on the roof Castile installed. K&M is a roofing company and home inspection company that has been in business some 60 years. The owner Kyle is extremely knowledgeable on roofing and knows the building codes of AZ very well. I have known since last April this roof was not even close to being done as per code or manufacturer mandates. What I did NOT know is how bad this roof really is. It is way worse than I could have even imagined last May. The invoice from Kyle for $425.00 was the best money spent on this project so far. It is not an issue of “if” this roof will leak in a monsoon, it is only an issue of how many buckets we will need in a hard rain. Every tile that Kyle removed showed more problems. After Kyle did his inspection report I contacted Aaron and his supervisor Wes Ellington explaining that Kyle from K&M would meet them at my home to show them what he found. The latest ROC inspection was done at 10:00am on 11/30/2023. Aaron told me Castile had been invited but no one from your company showed up?? At this meeting ladders were placed on my house so the ROC inspectors could get a visual viewing. Kyle removed a couple of dozen roofing tiles so they could view and photograph their findings. He removed vent stacks. Attic vents, rake tiles and then pulled back your new UDL50 that was definitely not installed properly. What they found was beyond belief.

There are so many things wrong with this roof it is hard to list them all. Nothing your company did was done to code or manufacturers instructions. Kyle knows the codes. I do not, but I can certainly read and understand what Kyle put into the report he sent to the ROC. Your guys violated codes and manufacturers installation instructions on multiple occasions. Kyle’s report explains everything in detail. On 05/11/2023 I sent an email to Alex that there were many issues with this roofing job and that I would not be signing off on this job until someone that speaks English talked with me IN PERSON and addresses my issues. It is now 5 months later and no one has ever personally been here to discuss the issues. The only “in person” contact has been with Yonathan. He obviously does not know the roofing industry code book. Nor has he or anyone else from Castile read the instructions from Owen’s Corning on how to install their UDL50. I have personally spoken with Owen’s Corning twice. All Received 2/9/2024 ROC Legal

Yonathan ever said is that things are being done the best way possible. How about doing it as per code? I told Alex it would be costlier for Castile once those solar panels went back on the roof. Two days later they were back on the roof. Fortunately for me you did not handle it in May, as many more things were found wrong this month by K&M Roofing that were not apparent back then. Alex kept insisting I was getting a quality roofing job. He is the person that told me to contact several other roofers, the building department and the ROC. On one email he even stated if this were not a quality job, he would eat his hat. GOOD LUCK WITH THAT. I hope its not a Stetson.

You have been directed by the ROC to put my roof on as to our original estimate, invoice, building codes and all manufacturer installation instructions. The ROC determined you performed poor work that doesn’t conform to professional industry standards. Absolutely EVERYONE I have spoken with said the same thing. The ROC is giving you until 01/02/2024 to basically completely re-do everything you did. Some of your work was already re-done once. Since you very obviously do not like me and I most definitely do not want anything to do with your company, there are several ways this case comes to an end. You could [with my written permission] have the solar removed at YOUR expense and remove all underlayment. This time all protrusions will need to be removed from the deck as the UDL50 installation instructions mandate. Another remedy would be for Castile to pay me back for every penny you have cost me for your incompetence. This would be my preference as I don’t think anyone at Castile knows anything about the proper way to roof a house. I know legally I have to give you the opportunity to fix what you did. The problem is that I don’t think you know how. If we go the payback direction I will sign a release to you for any further litigation and I will forget your name. The third option is to have the courts settle this. This is my least favorite way to do this as no one except attorneys come out on top.

I have an inferior product installed by Castile yet I am out a lot of money. I paid $5300.00 to Sunstream to remove and replace my solar panels. I paid Castile $5000.00 as an initial deposit. I’ve also paid two inspectors a total $725.00 to verify my concerns to the ROC. That is $11,025.00 out of my pocket for a roof that is worse than the one I had to start with. Your guys absolutely destroyed 60 solar post jacks. All the roofers I have spoken with have said they will most likely need to be replaced. I’m not certain of this cost until they can all be individually inspected. It’s also going to be an additional cost to deal with cleaning the buckets of tar your guys put around 60 posts trying to seal them in only a way YOUR crew would have done. Even Yonathan mentioned to me what a mess they made with all the tar. I know, I have those pictures. Received 2/9/2024 ROC Legal

If we go the first scenario there will be some new rules. Number one will be what I’ve asked for from day one. No one will be allowed on my roof at anytime that cannot communicate with me in English. Second I will be placing two video cameras on my patio to record every movement your crew makes. I will personally inspect every solar post jack and demand all with any issue be replaced at your expense. I will also require someone from your company act as a “Forman” each day while work is being performed, And Kyle from K&M will be inspecting your work twice each day that anyone is on my roof. He will also be doing a final inspection. He will be the voice on this job. Your guys will clean up their mess each day before leaving. Only then will you get a final payment. If we go the second scenario I am asking for a check from Castile for $15,000.00. That covers my previous losses of $11,025.00 out of pocket, and the rest for replacing any damaged solar post flashings, the additional cost to clean up your “tar” mess, and the rest for writing over 125 emails, several letters, dozens of phone calls, two trips to the ROC in Phoenix, 3 trips to the building department, a dozen in person meetings and all of the headaches you have cost my wife and I. All of this over a job that was supposed to last three days. I am 73 and my wife is 80. We are both retired and do not need the stress you have caused. The third scenario and the one I hope you don’t choose will be for me to start a lawsuit against your company. If we go that direction there will be lawyers fees and court costs which will eventually be paid by Castile. We will be bringing in witnesses along with Kyle from K&M and Aaron and Wes from the ROC. If you have any better plans please let me know and we can talk. I have well over 200 pictures of every aspect of this job. If you would like to look at any of my pictures or documents in PERSON, just let me know. I’m available most any time. Also if we go to court we will be hearing from others in my neighborhood that you did the exact same type of work. I am 100% certain my 85 year old neighbor you did an underlayment job for also has UDL50 that was laid over old underlayment. I’m sure the batten boards were “stapled” through the UDL50 and none of the roof protrusions have ever been removed [just a bucket of tar to seal]. I have pictures of that also. How many more roofs can we find that this was done? I have an email from Alex stating this was a tried and true method and THE ONLY WAY HE WOULD DO IT. I am guessing there are many you have done improperly. I am also holding Castile 100% liable for any and all leaks until this is resolved. Rain has already penetrated my attic but at this point we have no drywall damage. I am hoping we keep it that way. It’s funny to me I have several emails from Alex saying how bad solar companies are. I also have an email conversation between Alex and CJ from Sunstream about how difficult I am to work with. How ironic?? Calling the kettle black? Received 2/9/2024 ROC Legal

From the beginning back in April I had a very good relationship with Alex and also Yonathan. I even requested that Yonathan be in charge of this roofing job, as I felt he was very sincere and seemed to be knowledgeable. I was told by Alex he would be. That all started to change when I could see there was NO supervision on this job. I was unable to communicate to the workers in English and I saw the absolutely amateurish job they were performing. After sending pictures to Alex of the work they were doing, Alex demanded they remove what they had done and start over. What Alex refused to do was replace the solar post jacks those workers destroyed. When trying to find the “6” jackets he finally agreed to replace, he sent a picture of one of those jacks to CJ at Sunstream. In that email Alex said he saw no problem with any of those jacks and was replacing those 6 only because I was being so difficult to work with. He stated he personally would not be replacing them. I have those emails. CJ said he could see no problem with that mangled jack in the photo that Alex sent. Are you kidding me?? Just expand that picture and you can CLEARLY see the hole where the cone is crimped to the flat piece. I am trying to keep an open mind about the both of you intentionally letting inferior work be performed under your license. I am hoping you “think” your employees are doing a quality job, and that this crew has slipped through the cracks. But that does not dismiss the fact that after 50-60 emails that I wrote about serious issues I had, you still opted NOT to have a supervisor [or owner] contact me in person. I have several emails between Alex and myself about having an English interpreter at my home and in fact Alex told me numerous times that Yonathan would be on my roof till the job was complete. I was lied to multiple times and that did NOT happen. In the two weeks your guys were on my roof I would say Yonathan was here less than 5 hours TOTAL. A 3 day job turned into over 2 weeks and I never received an invoice from your billing department until 09/01/2023. Seriously…… over 5 months to get a final invoice. Alex called to finish a ten minute job to seal sewer vents on 08/31/2023. That is about 5 months that you left my job incomplete. Were they too busy stapling UDL50 on someone else’s roof?

I know if I were the owner, I would want to know my guys were doing a job that can’t even be considered as sub par. The job doesn’t even rise to that level. It doesn’t even pass minimum standards or building codes. Alphonso, you insisted the crew was new but they were doing a good job. I can respond to that by personally showing you the evidence to the contrary. I also dealt with a crew that showed up early, left the job early, and left my roof and surrounding yard look like a dump site for two weeks. Everyday they left all the old debris on my roof with compressors, tools, buckets of tar and hoses and cords hanging over the side of our home. I had water bottles, old roofing from torn off patio etc in my side driveway and handfuls of trash that blew into Received 2/9/2024 ROC Legal

my neighbors yard. That was the only reason I found the mangled jacks. The wind blew 3 of them into my neighbors yard. All three of those had holes from being mishandled by your crew. Isn’t that amazing that only the ones I found and 3 still on the roof were bad? The other 57 are all good??? We will see when the solar panels come back off. Not one person on your crew had any pride or integrity in their work and it is very apparent that none of them know anything about roofing. NOTHING was removed from the roof or property until the last day when Yonathan finally showed up with a trailer. The work ethics of your crew are HORRENDOUS. This is a covenant controlled neighborhood and we LIVE in this home. How about showing some respect? And why didn’t your supervisor insist on a little pride and respect? If I were the owner of Castile Roofing I would want to hear and see all the facts. I have that information available anytime. It is your company and reputation that is on the line. Social media can be cruel. I would think you would want good reviews. I know I would. I’m hoping you don’t condone the activities performed at this address and would want to rectify what was done. I am proposing you take the buyout proposal of $15,000.00 and we both forget each others name. The ball is in your court. I am hoping for a quick response as I don’t want to add the replacement of drywall and repainting to this amount. I am hoping I don’t already have mold growing in my attic insulation. From this point forward I will be totaling any and all expenses I incur up to the date of a settlement with Castile and deducting from any final invoice. Hoping to hearing from you soon.

Sincerely yours, Ken Boldt Received 2/12/24, 2:15 PM RE: Evidence provided to me - [email redacted] 2/9/2024 ROC Legal

Subject: RE: Evidence provided to me Alex Anau <[email redacted]> Wed, Jan 3, 3:3 to Aaron King

You are viewing an attached message. State of Arizona Mail can't verify the authenticity of attached messages.

You’re missing a lot of explanatory text from e-mails that I think are important. You’re also missing the image attached, as well as all the evidence of pre-flashing submitted on 12/16/23. Those 4 photos are also attached. Probably important to include the forwarded e-mail after the 1st directive where Ken refused to allow us on property to fix the flashing. I’m attaching the e-mail I sent to you that includes his e-mail just to make it a bit easier.

There’s an entire e-mail regarding the first directive that contains important information. That is attached.

There’s an entire e-mail regarding the second directive that contains important information. That is attached.

These paragraphs in particular (below) are important, but I explained every piece of both complaints in detail. That all needs to be included. Those are the last 2 e-mails.

Eagle’s own concrete tile installation instructions (referenced in the NEW DIRECTIVE) also say crown staples are fine FOR BATTENS -- https://eagleroofing.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/TRI-Installatio Guide-2015-1.pdf. (Page 9 “Reroofing” which references Page 8)

The solar posts all have PRE-FLASHING (this is called deck flashing in that same document) which can b verified if you guys want to remove the solar and check (Page 18). The regular penetrations may or ma not but we can install them if need be, it’s a minor item. **Sent in e-mail on 12/16/23.

From: Aaron King <[email redacted]> Sent: Wednesday, January 3, 2024 3:03 PM To: Alex Anau <[email redacted]> Subject: Evidence provided to me

You don't often get email from [email redacted]. Learn why this is important

https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/d/AEoRXRTA57lS7pMLBuZoCVm_KRGucRaFeyN0Pcnt-wZ1fl2amyYS/popout?ver=1c1fj0t6u2uj&msg=%23msg-f%3… 1/1 Received 2/12/24, 2:17 PM Re: FW: Complaint 2023-10308 - [email redacted] 2/9/2024 ROC Legal

Subject: Re: FW: Complaint 2023-10308 Wes Ellington <[email redacted]> Thu, Dec 28, 2023, 5:0 to Alex Anau, Aaron King

You are viewing an attached message. State of Arizona Mail can't verify the authenticity of attached messages.

You don't often get email from [email redacted]. Learn why this is important

Alex. The new inspection was done at my direction as the complainant had new evidence. You chose not to attend the inspection, then chose not to provide this info until the new directive had been issued on 12/11. Your choice at this point is to either do the corrective work from the directive, or do nothing and wait for your opportunity to request a hearing. At the hearing you can provide the additional documents to the judge and let the court decide.

Wes Ellington #212 Assistant Chief of Investigations AZ Registrar of Contractors 1700 W Washington St. Ste 105 Phoenix, AZ 85007 Office: (602) 771-6755

Hours: Mon.- Fri. 8AM-5PM

The ROC is now on social media! Make sure to follow us on:

https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/d/AEoRXRTA57lS7pMLBuZoCVm_KRGucRaFeyN0Pcnt-wZ1fl2amyYS/popout?ver=1c1fj0t6u2uj&msg=%23msg-f%3… 1/1 Received 2/12/24, 2:17 PM Re: FW: FW: Complaint 2023-10308 - [email redacted] 2/9/2024 ROC Legal

Subject: Re: FW: FW: Complaint 2023-10308 Jeff Wills <[email redacted]> Wed, Jan 3, 12:5 to Alex Anau

You are viewing an attached message. State of Arizona Mail can't verify the authenticity of attached messages.

Understood. I have reached out to Investigator King and have asked him to review your information and make sure it becomes part of the file.

Thank you,

Jeff Wills Chief of Compliance Tribal Liaison Arizona Registrar of Contractors 1700 W. Washington St. Ste. 105 Phoenix, AZ 85007 Direct: (602) 771.6891 Cell: (602) 320.9929 Email: [email redacted]

Confidentiality and Nondisclosure Notice: This email message, including any attachments, is for the sole purpose the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by re email and delete and/or destroy all copies of the original message.

On Wed, Jan 3, 2024 at 12:56 PM Alex Anau <[email redacted]> wrote: That’s all I’m asking for – is someone to look at it and tell me if my evidence is sufficient to challenge the new items they’re bringing up. Right now I’m being denied that right and just being told I have to non-comply to make that happen.

Thank you.

From: Jeff Wills <[email redacted]> Sent: Wednesday, January 3, 2024 12:53 PM To: Alex Anau <[email redacted]> https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/d/AEoRXRTA57lS7pMLBuZoCVm_KRGucRaFeyN0Pcnt-wZ1fl2amyYS/popout?ver=1c1fj0t6u2uj&msg=%23msg-f%3… 1/1 Received 2/12/24, 2:18 PM State of Arizona Mail - Citation 2023-10308 2/9/2024 ROC Legal Legal New Mail - AZROC <[email redacted]>

Citation 2023-10308 Alex Anau <[email redacted]> Fri, Fe To: Legal New Mail - AZROC <[email redacted]> Cc: Alfonso Larriva™ <[email redacted]>

Hi,

Sorry it’s close to the cut here. We do intend to amend this response once we finally have everything that’s in the complaint. The items I’m attaching here are items that I believe aren’ yet, but everything else mentioned in this response should be. We’re including Ken’s e-mail that was sent to us after the 2nd directive as we believe it shows his intent, and makes some intrusion primarily) that we’ve yet to see evidence of, but we’re missing the file.

Please reach out if you have any questions I can answer. We do think this was incorrectly ruled based on the evidence presented but look forward to a fair review and discussion.

Thanks,

Alex

General Manager

Atlas General, LLC DBA Castile Roofing

From: [email redacted] <[email redacted]> On Behalf Of Legal New Mail - AZROC Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2024 1:00 PM Subject: Citation 2023-10308

You don't often get email from [email redacted]. Learn why this is important

Hello,

Attached please find an electronic courtesy copy of the Citation issued in this case. This document was also sent to your attention via US Mail.

Thank you,

Arizona Registrar of Contractors

Legal Department

Fill out AZ ROC’s survey to let us know how we’re doing and how we can better serve you!

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Alex Anau <[email redacted]> To: Aaron King <[email redacted]> Cc: Bcc: Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2024 22:32:47 +0000 Subject: RE: Evidence provided to me

You’re missing a lot of explanatory text from e-mails that I think are important. You’re also missing the image attached, as well as all the evidence of pre-flashing submitted on 12/16/23 are also attached. Probably important to include the forwarded e-mail after the 1st directive where Ken refused to allow us on property to fix the flashing. I’m attaching the e-mail I sen includes his e-mail just to make it a bit easier.

https://mail.google.com/mail/b/AEoRXRTA57lS7pMLBuZoCVm_KRGucRaFeyN0Pcnt-wZ1fl2amyYS/u/0/?ik=d3afebeda9&view=pt&search=all&perm… 1/22 Received 2/12/24, 2:18 PM State of Arizona Mail - Citation 2023-10308 2/9/2024 There’s an entire e-mail regarding the first directive that contains important information. That is attached. ROC Legal

There’s an entire e-mail regarding the second directive that contains important information. That is attached.

These paragraphs in particular (below) are important, but I explained every piece of both complaints in detail. That all needs to be included. Those are the last 2 e-mails.

Eagle’s own concrete tile installation instructions (referenced in the NEW DIRECTIVE) also say crown staples are fine FOR BATTENS -- https://eagleroofing.com/wp- content/uploads/2015/05/TRI-Installation-Guide-2015-1.pdf. (Page 9 “Reroofing” which references Page 8)

The solar posts all have PRE-FLASHING (this is called deck flashing in that same document) which can be verified if you guys want to remove the solar and check (Page 18). The r penetrations may or may not but we can install them if need be, it’s a minor item.

**Sent in e-mail on 12/16/23.

From: Aaron King <[email redacted]> Sent: Wednesday, January 3, 2024 3:03 PM To: Alex Anau <[email redacted]> Subject: Evidence provided to me

You don't often get email from [email redacted]. Learn why this is important

20240103 Pic commfilehistory from R from for first R 2023-10308.pdf JSI 2023-103... 20240103 R text doc Combined 2023-10308.pdf

Mr. Anau,

I spoke to our Chief today and in an effort to ensure I have all your information correctly documented, I would like to ensure that what I have attached to this email is all your supporting informa through any email I have received from you and combined the information into these 6 documents. I do not see where I have any other information from you in regards to this complaint outsid Please review the attachments and let me know if I have it all, or respond with the documents and evidence missing so I can ensure this complaint has all information pertinent to it. I look forw response.

1- comm history from R

2- Pic file from R for first JSI

3- R text doc Combined

4- OC Letterhead

5- R email for Castile Roofing Estimate

6- R evidence email

Aaron King Investigator #232 AZ Registrar of Contractors 1700 W Washington St. Ste 105 Phoenix, AZ 85007 Office: (520) 628-6890

Hours: Mon.- Fri. 8AM-5PM

https://mail.google.com/mail/b/AEoRXRTA57lS7pMLBuZoCVm_KRGucRaFeyN0Pcnt-wZ1fl2amyYS/u/0/?ik=d3afebeda9&view=pt&search=all&perm… 2/22 Received 2/12/24, 2:18 PM State of Arizona Mail - Citation 2023-10308 2/9/2024 ---------- Forwarded message ---------- ROC Legal From: Alex Anau <[email redacted]> To: Aaron King <[email redacted]> Cc: "Alfonso Larriva™" <[email redacted]> Bcc: Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2023 21:48:47 +0000 Subject: FW: Complaint 2023-10308 Directive

Ken is now refusing to let us on property. I tried to schedule for later this week to address what you asked us to fix, and he’s refusing. I attached my response and what I sent him for full disc

From: Alex Anau Sent: Monday, October 23, 2023 2:47 PM To: 'Ken Boldt' <[email redacted]> Subject: RE: Complaint 2023-10308 Directive

I’d be happy to once we’re.. finished. We just want to finish. The report is something extra I was happy to do, but I can only operate without reason. Now that even the RoC has come out, yo cooperate and pay. Here to cooperate within reason, and I think a lot of people would agree that means agreeing to finish and fix outstanding items. Just looking for an agreement and not to

I was told when on property that everyone agreed to fix the flashings, and the tiles on the patio, and then we could move on. RoC asked us to fix the patio tiles, but we can do both.

Here’s all the photos I sent Aaron, I compiled all the photos that addressed your specific complaints with the RoC. I think they show just about everything.

From: Ken Boldt <[email redacted]> Sent: Monday, October 23, 2023 2:22 PM To: Alex Anau <[email redacted]> Subject: Re: Complaint 2023-10308 Directive

First things first. I have been asking for a report from you since May with findings of what caused the original leak and associated pictures. You have repeatedly said you would be sending tha over 5 months have gone by without seeing that report or pictures. Yonathan told the ROC and myself that he had pictures of 60 solar posts being properly sealed. I asked to see those pictur response from Yonathan or Castile. There have been many new findings on your absolutely shoddy, amateur work on this roof. I am in close contact with a roofer, a roofing inspector and Ow makers of the UDL50). and I am in the process of disputing the findings of the ROC. Aaron with the ROC only ruled against my claim because with the solar and tiles installed he could not phy Castile’s work. Aaron has never been on my roof to inspect your work. He NEVER suggested your work was either good or bad. The ruling was only that he could not physically see it. The m the pictures and inspect what they can physically see (and 200 zoomed in pictures)……. The worse this roof looks. Proper repairs on this roof will be extensive and expensive. Fixing a few m nothing compared to what will inevitably be required. No one from Castile is allowed on this property at this time. Still waiting for a report and pictures showing your work. We are far from done

On Oct 23, 2023, at 1:40 PM, Alex Anau <[email redacted]> wrote:

Hi Ken,

Yonathan would like to come Thursday morning between 8 and 10 AM to fix those tiles above the patio per the attached directive. Let me know if that works for you. If there’s other pho like to see, Yonathan can show them to you. There’s a lot of details so.. just easier in person. He’s got them all on his phone.

Let me know if that works and we’ll get it done.

Thanks,

Alex

Castile Roofing

From: Aaron King <[email redacted]> Sent: Friday, October 13, 2023 10:43 AM To: Alex Anau <[email redacted]> Subject: Complaint 2023-10308 Directive

Dear Respondent. A written directive has now been issued regarding the above listed complaint. Please see the attached directive for details and instructions (a copy has also been mailed to your ad file). You have until October 30, 2023 to correct the issues. Please respond and acknowledge receipt of this email. Sincerely,

https://mail.google.com/mail/b/AEoRXRTA57lS7pMLBuZoCVm_KRGucRaFeyN0Pcnt-wZ1fl2amyYS/u/0/?ik=d3afebeda9&view=pt&search=all&perm… 3/22 Received 2/12/24, 2:18 PM State of Arizona Mail - Citation 2023-10308 2/9/2024 Aaron King ROC Legal Investigator #232 AZ Registrar of Contractors 1700 W Washington St. Ste 105 Phoenix, AZ 85007 Office: (520) 628-6890

Hours: Mon.- Fri. 8AM-5PM

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Alex Anau <[email redacted]> To: "[email redacted]" <[email redacted]> Cc: "Alfonso Larriva™" <[email redacted]> Bcc: Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2023 21:13:36 +0000 Subject: FW: Complaint 2023-10308

Hi Aaron,

I’m Alex, the General Manager over at Castile Roofing. There’s a lot of details here, but I’ll focus on what he specifically complained about in the report.

“Roofing underlayment not installed correctly.” He’s complaining about the holes we cut for his solar jacks. I’m attaching the e-mail he sent me on 9/1 that has photos. I looked at the photos didn’t think he was being reasonable as the holes looked pretty good. You can see in photo 2 that the posts have a base that’s wider than the tip. Our underlayment barely even reaches the the holes are pretty tight. In his first photo, you can even see we sealed them there at his request (and we also thought it’d be a good idea long term).

“Flashing jacks around solar posts were destroyed by installers.” He complained that we bent some of the flashings at the beginning of the job. The guys did bend them as there was a bit of beginning on how to remove them which they figured out later, but it didn’t do any damage. Regular roof jacks literally come bent from our supplier, they’re designed to flex. Regardless, to ke did agree to replace 6. Streamline Solar was the company who removed and reinstalled the solar, so I reached out to them to locate some, and even sent their representative CJ some photos opinion. He commented that they looked fine via text (attached) and said they’re just regular roof jacks. We replaced these ones though so I’m not sure if he wants more replaced or what.

“Vent stack flashings not installed properly.” I’ve attached his photos. These are installed properly, but are slightly lifted. We did try to correct, but they weren’t sealing to his satisfaction. We’ these, and we tried to come last week but we were a bit short on notice and didn’t get his approval. I e-mailed him again to try and set up a time, but he then got upset that we were still expec refused my offer to come replace those flashings. We could probably get these to sit right with some effort, but we’re fine to replace them if he’ll let us.

“Some tiles near patio roofline not sitting properly.” Photo attached. The sheet of wood that goes from the patio to the main roof sits a little higher than the main roof. It’s not significant, but yo that tile slightly lifted. This was like this before we got here. If you tell us we have to find a solution, we can maybe grind the tile down so that it’s shorter than the rest and sits properly. I’ll lea you, I don’t think it’s an issue, but it’s in his complaint.

Sorry for the length, but hopefully it’s thorough. Ken sent dozens of e-mails during and after this project so there’s plenty of documentation along the way. We’ll fix what you tell us, I told Ken wasn’t being reasonable in asking for a $5000+ discount. I was open to either fixing specific problems if we could agree they were problems, or to some kind of discount if that’s what he want all bad and unusable so he owes nothing.

If you’d like more information or have questions, feel free to call me directly at (480) 933-8902.

Thanks,

Alex

Castile Roofing

From: Aaron King <[email redacted]> Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2023 12:51 PM To: Alfonso Larriva™ <[email redacted]> Subject: Complaint 2023-10308

A formal complaint has been filed against you and a jobsite inspection has been scheduled. I would appreciate it if you would assist me in my investigation and respond to the allegations inspection. The formal jobsite inspection letter has been attached to this email as well as a copy of the formal complaint. Please respond and acknowledge receipt of this email.

Thank you,

https://mail.google.com/mail/b/AEoRXRTA57lS7pMLBuZoCVm_KRGucRaFeyN0Pcnt-wZ1fl2amyYS/u/0/?ik=d3afebeda9&view=pt&search=all&perm… 4/22 Received 2/12/24, 2:18 PM State of Arizona Mail - Citation 2023-10308 2/9/2024 Aaron King ROC Legal Investigator #232 AZ Registrar of Contractors 1700 W Washington St. Ste 105 Phoenix, AZ 85007 Office: (520) 628-6890

Hours: Mon.- Fri. 8AM-5PM

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Ken Boldt <[email redacted]> To: Alex Anau <[email redacted]> Cc: Bcc: Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2023 19:09:19 +0000 Subject: Re: Your Roof! Out of 250+ pictures I have in my file, I am sending you 2 to ponder. I was told numerous times that when putting the underlayment over the solar posts, your installers would be cutting a hole underlayment just big enough for the post to go through and then putting sealant below the cut out and above the cut out and then squished water tight. I didn’t make that up. That’s what YOU be done. Just like YOU said you did at my neighbors home. Do these pictures look like what was supposed to be done? And these are pictures AFTER I made you tear off the complete disast 18inch slits in the underlayment. These are pictures of how this roof looks like TODAY, (under the tile). I have many more such pictures but I have better things to do today than going through After all, your team thinks this was done properly and professionally so what would be the point? Also you said my roof should last 20 years?? I was told I should use Your suggested underlay last 50 years. What’s with that? If you continue to insist I owe money for this mess, I would suggest you and I go to the building department in Casa Grande and ask them their opinion? And l through my picture folder. As stated before, this is 2 pictures out of 250

https://mail.google.com/mail/b/AEoRXRTA57lS7pMLBuZoCVm_KRGucRaFeyN0Pcnt-wZ1fl2amyYS/u/0/?ik=d3afebeda9&view=pt&search=all&perm… 5/22 Received 2/12/24, 2:18 PM State of Arizona Mail - Citation 2023-10308 2/9/2024 ROC Legal

https://mail.google.com/mail/b/AEoRXRTA57lS7pMLBuZoCVm_KRGucRaFeyN0Pcnt-wZ1fl2amyYS/u/0/?ik=d3afebeda9&view=pt&search=all&perm… 6/22 Received 2/12/24, 2:18 PM State of Arizona Mail - Citation 2023-10308 2/9/2024 ROC Legal

On Sep 1, 2023, at 11:28 AM, Alex Anau <[email redacted]> wrote:

After the ordeal you went through, I chose not to send an invoice until we had fixed every last item. Instead of sending an invoice when they were 99% finished, I waited until Yonathan replace the last few items you had problems with. It took him far too long to do so obviously, but I didn’t feel right billing you for it until afterwards.

You’re welcome to list what else was wrong with the roof that was put back on. If you’ve got a list of items, I’m here to listen and then we could decide whether you need some kind of l discount. Right now all I’m hearing is there’s still a lot of problems and you owe nothing, but I don’t know exactly what those problems are. I’m pretty reasonable, if you’ve got some gia issues that are going to cause your roof to not last the 20+ years we anticipate, then I’m happy to listen to them. I can’t have a good faith discussion with you on why you need a $5000 though without knowing exactly what’s wrong. I don’t want photos of things they messed up but corrected, I need to know exactly what’s wrong NOW.

And, yes, Yonathan wasn’t in a big hurry, but we’re here now and ready to fix it. If you’d prefer we not fix it, that’s fine, it’s nothing that will affect the longevity of the roof. If there’s othe glaring problems, then I’m here and waiting to listen.

From: Ken Boldt <[email redacted]> Sent: Friday, September 1, 2023 11:16 AM To: Alex Anau <[email redacted]> Subject: Re: Your Roof!

I watched your guys from start to finish. As YOU say, they finished the job. Problem is that I had very little choice on letting them continue till the roof was back on. What was I suppose an open roof if I kicked your guys off the job? Your guys know as much about roofing as I know about heart surgery. The problem is that I had to accept inferior work as it was better tha alternative of leaving it open. Was I just supposed to hope I could find someone to finish (which would mean a complete re-do). NOTHING about any aspect of this job was professiona think your guys did a professional job, although YOU were never there, and a supervisor was there only a few hours in the two week timeline. So I am the only person that witnessed th its entirety. The roof is back on, but that doesn’t mean it’s a quality job. I’m done going back and forth with you. Castile is no longer allowed on our roof. And like I have said several tim think we still owe you for this job, send that final invoice and I will take things to the next level. You obviously are in no hurry as I have heard nothing from you or your company for over

On Sep 1, 2023, at 10:46 AM, Alex Anau <[email redacted]> wrote:

So your roof is still shitty? Is that what I’m getting here? You’ve got 2 jacks that aren’t sitting correctly which, again, offering to replace, and then one tile that’s not sitting correct

What else is still not up to par? Pretty sure you sent an e-mail towards the end there specifically only mentioning those 2 items.

From: Ken Boldt <[email redacted]> Sent: Friday, September 1, 2023 10:35 AM

https://mail.google.com/mail/b/AEoRXRTA57lS7pMLBuZoCVm_KRGucRaFeyN0Pcnt-wZ1fl2amyYS/u/0/?ik=d3afebeda9&view=pt&search=all&perm… 7/22 Received 2/12/24, 2:18 PM State of Arizona Mail - Citation 2023-10308 2/9/2024 To: Alex Anau <[email redacted]> ROC Legal Subject: Re: Your Roof!

Obviously you don’t comprehend what I said. Maybe re-read my past emails. Communication skills within your company are pathetic to say the least.

On Sep 1, 2023, at 10:11 AM, Alex Anau <[email redacted]> wrote:

I’m not the one that visits, but he was out running circles all day. Maybe I misunderstood, but I told him you didn’t respond to me just yet, and he said nobody was home so.. we did nothing. They can come back out on Tuesday with your approval if you’ll be around, and then they can replace the jacks and cut down the 1 tile so it’s flat. Sounds like it rained pretty good last night, did it leak?

You have pictures of the guys doing a poor job which.. we corrected. If Apple sends you a crap computer and then repairs it after you documenting that it’s crappy, you likely still pay for the computer (but with a discount probably which is what I’m offering).

You and I going back and forth isn’t productive, yes, I’m not the one who did the work, and we’ve both commented this isn’t personal. The business can’t just take the loss on 60% of the job. That might be the best path forward if we left the roof with all the mistakes still in place (i.e. you got 40% of the product). But, the work was done, and correctly. We’re replacing these roof jacks at no charge as another apology, and then hoping we’ll all move on.

From: Ken Boldt <[email redacted]> Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2023 7:38 PM To: Alex Anau <[email redacted]> Subject: Re: Your Roof!

I don’t think frustrated is the correct terminology. Your guys started doing a crap job and they finished the same way. I did not get a quality job. I’m not wasting anymore of my time going back and forth with he said…..she said. My last email says how we feel. I’m still waiting for the first monsoon to see my ceiling turn yellow again. A three hundred dollar discount doesn’t cut it. Send me a final bill if you must and then we’ll let the chips fall where they may. You covered your mistakes but I still have 250 pictures.

On Aug 31, 2023, at 6:53 PM, Alex Anau <[email redacted]> wrote:

I get the frustration, but at the end, we delivered a good product. It was stressful, I’ve apologized, I’m fine to offer a bit more of a discount, but the owner isn’t willing to write off over $5,000 over a few flashings and a tile. I’m sorry it was messy, I didn’t enjoy being in the middle either and wish they just got it right at the beginning. I don’t think asking for a $5000+ discount is reasonable though. The guys made mistakes but we fixed them, you don’t have half a roof that’s unusable.

I’m fine to take another $300 off and do exactly what I promised. I can ask the owner if he’d like to write the entire other half off, but I don’t think he’ll be willing given the end result. I’ve offered to fix everything and have, and still am, and intend to finish (albeit late) while doing exactly what I promised. Doing anything else is just going to drag this on for even longer. It’s easier for everyone if we let Yonathan finally finish his job and move on.

On Aug 31, 2023, at 5:41 PM, Ken Boldt <[email redacted]> wrote:

Alex,

After NO contact from anyone from Castile Roofing in over 3 months, I received an email from you at 10:52 this morning. You stated that between 12:00 and 2:00 Yonathan would be arriving at our home to finish the roofing job that was supposed to be completed the third week of May. You gave me a two hour notice. I had other commitments this afternoon but I rearranged my schedule to match yours. Well it is now past 5:30 and I have not seen or heard anything from your company. Are you just trying to piss me off or what? You also stated you were still planning on writing a report on the reasons of our original roof leaks. I have asked for that report multiple times over the past four months. Are you really that busy or are we on the bottom of your list of things to do? It has taken us the past three months to “cool down” after the massive debacle we went through with Castile and also with Streamline Solar. And now today you rip open the scars again. I am years old and did not have the time or stamina to sit on my roof to guide your guys on how to do a roof. What I did see them doing from the ground would send chills up the spine of any legitimate or professional roofer. My pictures are beyond belief. We have exchanged many conversations on what I witnessed so I won’t be going over all of that again. The lack of roofing knowledge and supervision on our job was absolutely mind boggling. I have in my file over 55 emails back and forth with Castile. I have in my file over 255 pictures of what was done from start to finish. I use the term finish very loosely, as in my opinion it was never “finished”. You can ad to that total probably 8- phone calls. SERIOUSLY?? Just to do a routine re-roof! You stated that I deserve some sort of discount. In our opinion the 5K that we originally paid before the job, is all this job was worth. The discount should be any monies owed. We were told by you, your company was the best and could be trusted, and this was a very routine job. We were also promised Yonathan would “basically” be on the job, start to finish. He was…….. when they started, and again when they finished. I was here the entire time. What we actually received for that 5K was a nightmare for over two weeks. We had people on our roof that had no idea of what they were doing when it comes to dealing with soar panels [and other basic roofing skills]. You suggested how to deal with the solar as you had just done my neighbors house with an identical roof and solar. We did exactly as you suggested. Problem is that your workers weren’t informed of the proper procedures. Starting immediately I will allow NO ONE on my roof without having permission on an email or text. I will spend no more of my time waiting on Castile. After 3 months and no contact from you or a final bill, we had assumed you were writing off any additional charges. You and I both know we did not get that “professional” roofing job that we had contracted for. Our 3 day job was not supposed to be 3 months. You feel we still owe you money and we feel we paid money for an inferior job. In our mind that should be a zero balance. If you think we have any

https://mail.google.com/mail/b/AEoRXRTA57lS7pMLBuZoCVm_KRGucRaFeyN0Pcnt-wZ1fl2amyYS/u/0/?ik=d3afebeda9&view=pt&search=all&perm… 8/22 Received 2/12/24, 2:18 PM State of Arizona Mail - Citation 2023-10308 2/9/2024 unpaid balance, please send documentation for our review. I hope we can come to an agreement without escalating the matter.ROC Legal Thanks, Ken Boldt

On Aug 31, 2023, at 10:52 AM, Alex Anau <[email redacted]> wrote:

Hi Ken,

Sorry it’s been a little quiet, I’ve been yelling at Yonathan for months to go back and replace those flashings so we’d be at 100% here. I’m w also going to have him look at that lifted tile on the patio.

I still owe you a report which I intend to write, and probably a bit of a discount for Yonathan having taken months to get back over there. He should be out between 12 and 2 today, and then I’ll deliver on the rest.

Thanks,

Alex

Castile Roofing

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Ken Boldt <[email redacted]> To: Alex Anau <[email redacted]> Cc: Bcc: Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2023 02:37:48 +0000 Subject: Re: Your Roof! - Offer To Replace Flashing Refused I don’t think frustrated is the correct terminology. Your guys started doing a crap job and they finished the same way. I did not get a quality job. I’m not wasting anymore of my time going back said…..she said. My last email says how we feel. I’m still waiting for the first monsoon to see my ceiling turn yellow again. A three hundred dollar discount doesn’t cut it. Send me a final bill then we’ll let the chips fall where they may. You covered your mistakes but I still have 250 pictures.

On Aug 31, 2023, at 6:53 PM, Alex Anau <[email redacted]> wrote:

I get the frustration, but at the end, we delivered a good product. It was stressful, I’ve apologized, I’m fine to offer a bit more of a discount, but the owner isn’t willing to write off over $5,0 few flashings and a tile. I’m sorry it was messy, I didn’t enjoy being in the middle either and wish they just got it right at the beginning. I don’t think asking for a $5000+ discount is reaso though. The guys made mistakes but we fixed them, you don’t have half a roof that’s unusable.

I’m fine to take another $300 off and do exactly what I promised. I can ask the owner if he’d like to write the entire other half off, but I don’t think he’ll be willing given the end result. I’ve fix everything and have, and still am, and intend to finish (albeit late) while doing exactly what I promised. Doing anything else is just going to drag this on for even longer. It’s easier for we let Yonathan finally finish his job and move on.

On Aug 31, 2023, at 5:41 PM, Ken Boldt <[email redacted]> wrote:

Alex,

After NO contact from anyone from Castile Roofing in over 3 months, I received an email from you at 10:52 this morning. You stated that between 12:00 and 2:00 Yonathan wou be arriving at our home to finish the roofing job that was supposed to be completed the third week of May. You gave me a two hour notice. I had other commitments this afternoo but I rearranged my schedule to match yours. Well it is now past 5:30 and I have not seen or heard anything from your company. Are you just trying to piss me off or what? You a stated you were still planning on writing a report on the reasons of our original roof leaks. I have asked for that report multiple times over the past four months. Are you really tha busy or are we on the bottom of your list of things to do? It has taken us the past three months to “cool down” after the massive debacle we went through with Castile and also w Streamline Solar. And now today you rip open the scars again. I am 72 years old and did not have the time or stamina to sit on my roof to guide your guys on how to do a roof. W I did see them doing from the ground would send chills up the spine of any legitimate or professional roofer. My pictures are beyond belief. We have exchanged many conversat on what I witnessed so I won’t be going over all of that again. The lack of roofing knowledge and supervision on our job was absolutely mind boggling. I have in my file over 55 emails back and forth with Castile. I have in my file over 255 pictures of what was done from start to finish. I use the term finish very loosely, as in my opinion it was never “finish You can ad to that total probably 8-10 phone calls. SERIOUSLY?? Just to do a routine re-roof! You stated that I deserve some sort of discount. In our opinion the 5K that we originally paid before the job, is all this job was worth. The discount should be any monies owed. We were told by you, your company was the best and could be trusted, and this was a very routine job. We were also promised Yonathan would “basically” be on the job, start to finish. He was…….. when they started, and again when they finished. I was he the entire time. What we actually received for that 5K was a nightmare for over two weeks. We had people on our roof that had no idea of what they were doing when it comes to dealing with soar panels [and other basic roofing skills]. You suggested how to deal with the solar as you had just done my neighbors house with an identical roof and solar. We d exactly as you suggested. Problem is that your workers weren’t informed of the proper procedures. Starting immediately I will allow NO ONE on my roof without having permissio on an email or text. I will spend no more of my time waiting on Castile. After 3 months and no contact from you or a final bill, we had assumed you were writing off any additiona charges. You and I both know we did not get that “professional” roofing job that we had contracted for. Our 3 day job was not supposed to be 3 months. You feel we still owe yo money and we feel we paid money for an inferior job. In our mind that should be a zero balance. If you think we have any unpaid balance, please send documentation for our rev I hope we can come to an agreement without escalating the matter. Thanks, Ken Boldt

On Aug 31, 2023, at 10:52 AM, Alex Anau <[email redacted]> wrote:

Hi Ken,

https://mail.google.com/mail/b/AEoRXRTA57lS7pMLBuZoCVm_KRGucRaFeyN0Pcnt-wZ1fl2amyYS/u/0/?ik=d3afebeda9&view=pt&search=all&perm… 9/22 Received 2/12/24, 2:18 PM State of Arizona Mail - Citation 2023-10308 2/9/2024 ROC Legal I still owe you a report which I intend to write, and probably a bit of a discount for Yonathan having taken months to get back over there. He should be out between 12 and 2 today, and then I’ll deliver on the rest.

Thanks,

Alex

Castile Roofing

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Alex Anau <[email redacted]> To: Aaron King <[email redacted]> Cc: "Alfonso Larriva™" <[email redacted]> Bcc: Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2023 16:22:08 +0000 Subject: FW: Complaint 2023-10308

I’ve tried calling in to open a formal appeal but am told that’s not a process. I’m really looking for some kind of response here as we’re close to our timeline and I’ve received none despite mu sent. I’ve provided evidence that all the penetrations have pre-flashing in my previous e-mail below, plus --

Here’s a signed statement from Owens Corning indicating that using staples through BATTENS is an acceptable method. Plastic cap nails were used as the primary fastener for the underlaym I also provided the same Eagle installation document that was used in the directive that also states using crown staples as fasteners for the BATTENS is an acceptable method (link here agai https://eagleroofing.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/TRI-Installation-Guide-2015-1.pdf).

Attached is an e-mail before we started this job indicating to Ken in detail that we would leave the existing layer of underlayment if it was acceptable to do so, and him responding to that e-ma Ken discussed this on-site numerous times, and then Yonathan and I also discussed it numerous times while we were on the jobsite. Transcribed phone calls are attached showing that Yonat discussed this 2nd layer while doing the job on repeated occasions after Yonathan discussed with Ken in person. This was an agreed part of this job from the beginning, and the e-mails + call Plus, if you review all of the communications Ken sent during the job, you’ll see that he never once mentioned that 2nd layer being something he was concerned about despite bringing up vari and even sending photos that show the 2nd layer yet not noting it as a problem.

We’re happy to re-seal the flashings to the roof and fix the few lifted tiles on the patio, those are real issues, but the other items listed here are clearly false as shown above. I’d really like the went out on the job to be tagged in all of these communications, it’s necessary at this point as he apparently agrees with this directive despite all the evidence to the contrary.

From: Alex Anau Sent: Saturday, December 16, 2023 9:58 AM To: Alfonso Larriva™ <[email redacted]>; Aaron King <[email redacted]> Subject: RE: Complaint 2023-10308

Found it. Here’s evidence that all the penetrations – solar and regular – have pre-flashing. I’m not sure how we were penalized for having none when they’re clearly here.

We also have evidence that Ken was aware of the 2nd layer of underlayment throughout the entire process, it was discussed before and during the job. None of what we’re being accused of h

From: Alex Anau <[email redacted]> Sent: Saturday, December 16, 2023 9:45 AM To: Alfonso Larriva™ <[email redacted]>; Aaron King <[email redacted]> Subject: RE: Complaint 2023-10308

Levi Brooks is the local Owens Corning representative here in town. Below is my transcript with him where he states very clearly that staples can be used to install battens. I’m in the process written statement from Owens Corning themselves.

Eagle’s own concrete tile installation instructions (referenced in the NEW DIRECTIVE) also say crown staples are fine FOR BATTENS -- https://eagleroofing.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05 Guide-2015-1.pdf. (Page 9 “Reroofing” which references Page 8)

The solar posts all have PRE-FLASHING (this is called deck flashing in that same document) which can be verified if you guys want to remove the solar and check (Page 18). The regular pe may not but we can install them if need be, it’s a minor item.

You said the assistant chief came out on this one to do the inspection, yet we’ve been offered 0 contact with him. Seems proper he should be included in these discussions moving further and

A screenshot of a message Description automatically generated

From: Alfonso Larriva™ <[email redacted]> Sent: Friday, December 15, 2023 8:06 PM To: Aaron King <[email redacted]> Cc: Alex Anau <[email redacted]> Subject: RE: Complaint 2023-10308

https://mail.google.com/mail/b/AEoRXRTA57lS7pMLBuZoCVm_KRGucRaFeyN0Pcnt-wZ1fl2amyYS/u/0/?ik=d3afebeda9&view=pt&search=all&per… 10/22 Received 2/12/24, 2:18 PM State of Arizona Mail - Citation 2023-10308 2/9/2024 ROC Legal We disagree with some of these items.

It’s not clear to us that the manufacturers instructions on underlayment were interpreted correctly.

The underlayment was affixed to the roof properly with nails with a plastic ring on them, and then staples were used to attach the batons to the roof.

Alex will have something written from the manufacturer, but the position they verbally expressed is that staples should not be used to attach the underlayment to the roof, but that sta acceptable and are commonly used to attach the batons to the roof.

We had approval by e-mail from Ken to install the underlayment over the old as a modifier to the written quite. We requested and he approved.

And then on the roof jacks Alex has commentary on these as well.

How long do we have to respond to this. I think you were presented with part of the story, but upon further study we believe that not all of the evidence, approvals, and manufacturers specific presented to make a complete and accurate decision.

From: Aaron King <[email redacted]> Sent: Monday, December 11, 2023 11:10 AM To: Alfonso Larriva™ <[email redacted]> Subject: Complaint 2023-10308

You don't often get email from [email redacted]. Learn why this is important

Based on the new information provided at the second inspection, the Written Directive has been amended. Please see the attached for details, you have until January 2, 2024 to complete the

Aaron King Investigator #232 AZ Registrar of Contractors 1700 W Washington St. Ste 105 Phoenix, AZ 85007 Office: (520) 628-6890

Hours: Mon.- Fri. 8AM-5PM

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Ken Boldt <[email redacted]> To: Alex Anau <[email redacted]> Cc: Bcc: Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2023 19:07:09 +0000 Subject: Re: Castile Roofing - 3917 N Dorado Ln Estimate I just posted a $5k for deposit on your website. Thanks

Sent from Ken's iPhone 12 Pro

On Apr 10, 2023, at 11:27 AM, Alex Anau <[email redacted]> wrote:

Sounds good – I’ll let you know what CJ says, I already e-mailed him.

I can arrange to have Yonathan there on that first day to look at everything before we pull it up, and then to take a look after we pull it up. Being able to see the waterflow can be pretty determining leak causes and will hopefully give us some kind of answer. If the old underlayment isn’t totally degraded, we’ll likely just leave it as well. It’s a nice little backup so in 20 ye whatever, there’s one more layer the water has to get through before it can get in. They’ll assess when there, but given the age of your home I bet they can.

An even $5,000 is fine, and then we can do the rest on a check. Bit less fees that way and plenty to get us started.

No worries on the dates – we’ll be done well before then. As long as CJ’s schedule lines up, we should be done and have the solar up more than a week before the 25th.

https://mail.google.com/mail/b/AEoRXRTA57lS7pMLBuZoCVm_KRGucRaFeyN0Pcnt-wZ1fl2amyYS/u/0/?ik=d3afebeda9&view=pt&search=all&per… 11/22 Received 2/12/24, 2:18 PM State of Arizona Mail - Citation 2023-10308 2/9/2024 No problem! Glad we were able to get everything pieced together quickly enough. ROC Legal

From: Ken Boldt <[email redacted]> Sent: Monday, April 10, 2023 10:39 AM To: Alex Anau <[email redacted]> Subject: Re: Castile Roofing - 3917 N Dorado Ln Estimate

The sooner the better. The synthetic underlayment you suggest sounds like a better way to go. We value your expertise, and do not want to worry about future problems. Also I would li input on the way the tiles were cut out for the solar posts. They were cut in a square pattern by a hand grinder instead of the small round holes like those on Bill’s house. I questioned t cutouts during solar install but was assured it was not a problem. The tiles on Bill’s house certainly look more professional and water tight than our tiles. We would like you or Yonathan after CJ removes the panels. Hopefully we can be completed by the 25th of May as we have out of State family coming May 26. How much deposit do we need to send? I will do cred deposit and balance on check when completed if that is OK. Thanks for all your help. Ken

Sent from Ken's iPhone 12 Pro

On Apr 10, 2023, at 10:05 AM, Alex Anau <[email redacted]> wrote:

Hi Ken,

That was quick!! I’ll send CJ an e-mail and see what his availability looks like. It looks like we can do either the first or second week of April just depending on when CJ can do i We have a project we can flip around if we need to.

The only other item is a deposit. A check is usually best as that way we can hold it and wait to deposit until we get a week out from our start date. Or if easier, you can pay by ca at www.castileroofing.com/pay-online/ but it’d take it instantly obviously. We just ask that you pay at least half on check so we save on some CC fees (we don’t charge anything extra for the card). Our mailing address is Castile Roofing, 6250 E Cheney Dr, Paradise Valley, AZ 85253-3518. Just let me know what you decide.

That’s really it! I can’t remember if we talked about it or not, but we really like this UDL50 synthetic underlayment. You likely have 40# tar paper up there which has been the standard for a very long time, but synthetics are now taking their place. They’re more plastic than asphalt which makes them much more resistant to tearing and other issues. It ultimately up to you of course, but figured I’d let you know that’s what we plan on putting up there unless you tell us otherwise. https://www.owenscorning.com/en- us/roofing/products/titanium-udl

I’ll let you know what CJ says and then we can get it on the calendar for good!

From: Ken Boldt <[email redacted]> Sent: Monday, April 10, 2023 8:08 AM To: Alex Anau <[email redacted]> Subject: Re: Castile Roofing - 3917 N Dorado Ln Estimate

Good morning Alex,

Our funding is now in our account for the roof repairs. What is the expected date to start our project? I guess you will be coordinating with CJ for his scheduling to remove solar panels? What else do you need from us? Thanks, Ken

On Apr 5, 2023, at 12:43 PM, Alex Anau <[email redacted]> wrote:

Hi Ken,

Yeah, they really are kind of jerks on tile roofs. It’s a pain to get anything on a tile roof handled through them unless you can get some tiles to blow out of place.

No worries – I totally understand. We’re not going anywhere either way! We’re about 4 weeks out on scheduling right now. When you do get some kind of timeline on funding, let me know and then we can throw it on the schedule. I’m OK to schedule it without a deposit if you know you’ll be able to make one a week before our start date or something. That way you’re not 4 weeks out from when the funding actually happens – gets you in a bit sooner.

We can do that as well. If it was coming through one of their little posts, then I don’t think you’d see a lot of underlayment degradation where the leaks are at. The solar leaks that I’ve seen come down straight through a nail or something small rather than just through the middle of the roof or something. We can ask them to take a bunch of photos of the existing underlayment with all the tiles removed to see where the water has been getting in and what it’s been doing.

https://mail.google.com/mail/b/AEoRXRTA57lS7pMLBuZoCVm_KRGucRaFeyN0Pcnt-wZ1fl2amyYS/u/0/?ik=d3afebeda9&view=pt&search=all&per… 12/22 Received 2/12/24, 2:18 PM State of Arizona Mail - Citation 2023-10308 2/9/2024 I can coordinate with CJ, no problem. I typically like to schedule to have it removed on a Friday before the week(s) we’re slated to start, and ROC Legal then ask him to come back 3 Mondays after. We’re only doing the back on yours, so we’d probably just do 2 Mondays after instead as a week is more than enough time to get it done. Easier that way too as if they’re running behind (or we are), we can let them know and move things around.

Absolutely on the quality. The one thing you don’t get to do when you install solar after the roof is done is seal it RIGHT at the base. Before we put the underlayment down, we like to put some tar around the post/pipe/vent and then put the underlayment over and squish it out. It ensures that the goop is filling every little space there and will harden around it in all locations. They seal them at the base during a new solar install, but it’s not the same as getting under the underlayment of course.

Thanks,

Alex

Castile Roofing

From: Ken Boldt <[email redacted]> Sent: Monday, April 3, 2023 4:09 PM To: Alex Anau <[email redacted]> Subject: Re: Castile Roofing - 3917 N Dorado Ln Estimate

Good afternoon Alex,

We heard back from our insurance company and just as you and I expected, they will not cover exterior roof. After my $1k deductible they want to send us a check for interior repair for $229.39. I’m telling them to keep it and cancel claim. Looks like they need the money worse than we do?? I’m working on funding right now. How are you looking as to a starting date? I don’t want to do anything until that money is in my account. I would like to get numerous pictures when you remove the tiles to document where leaks are so I can maybe work with Solar company if it was inferior work they did. Will you be working with CJ as to coordinate their work? I don’t want anything less than a quality roof renewal, and I know you feel the same. Thanks, Ken

Sent from Ken's iPhone 12 Pro

On Mar 25, 2023, at 9:15 AM, Alex Anau <[email redacted]> wrote:

Every industry has to learn. I think solar’s problem is a lot of the guys are never around long enough to learn from their mistakes. Or, they’re too big like Sunrun, and they just can’t learn. Sounds like Streamline has been around for a while, so hopefully they’ve learned quite a bit along the way.

You can see why we hate solar. They should really tell people up front that when it’s time to do the roof, you’re going to spend an extra $3k-$8k to pull the panels down so everyone can factor that into their calculations. The vast majority of the time when we get called out to view a leak and solar is involved, the customer never ends up doing the work because the cost to remove the solar is 5x the cost of the leak.

You always want to minimize penetrations into a roof as they’re the only weak points. With solar, there’s just no good way to do that – you’re adding 30- of them from the beginning. The other problem with adding the solar AFTER is that the roofer doesn’t get to seal them at the base. We’re a big fan when we’re doing an underlayment job like this of sealing around the mounts right at the wood level, and then putting the underlayment over it and squishing it out. We also seal over for extra protection. Not really something you can do if the solar comes after, so again, you’ve got another weak point. With the re-do, we’ll hopefully get a lot of them strengthened.

Oh you guys are in a great position then – I would definitely look at a HELOC given that, you should be able to get the best rates out there, and then I bet you can refi it out in a year or two when rates are lower. You could also ask CJ about financing, the solar industry uses a lot more financing so they might have better options than us. The financing through contractors usually comes without a lien on the house though. Maybe not important because you guys are clearly going to pay the loan.

Wow – that’s rough. We’ve got a car leasing business here, and a semi demolished one of our cars as well. Totaled our car, and then the semi had 0 damage (and drove off). I wouldn’t worry too much about past claims – that’s not your responsibility to worry about. They’re there for items like this, and over the last 20 years, I’m sure the insurance companies are way ahead on you regardless.

Glad to hear it, Yonathan is great. When we do this, he’s the one who will do and supervise the job, so always best to have him out there to take the first look.

From: Ken Boldt <[email redacted]> Sent: Friday, March 24, 2023 6:27 PM To: Alex Anau <[email redacted]> Subject: Re: Castile Roofing - 3917 N Dorado Ln Estimate

I think those are what I have but not positive. They put solar on that home years after us I believe. CJ would know as he was in charge of our install in 2016. I have also dealt with CJ on some warranty issues on the equipment. The mounting system I have seems like an ongoing problem. What you describe makes good sense. Seems like a second boot over the hole itself would also be advisable to me. We have owned this home since 2014 and

https://mail.google.com/mail/b/AEoRXRTA57lS7pMLBuZoCVm_KRGucRaFeyN0Pcnt-wZ1fl2amyYS/u/0/?ik=d3afebeda9&view=pt&search=all&per… 13/22 Received 2/12/24, 2:18 PM State of Arizona Mail - Citation 2023-10308 2/9/2024 ROC Legal we paid cash for it. Financing will be no problem as we have no bills, home is paid for. Just looking at options at this point. I really appreciate all your input. Up until now our solar has been fantastic, but looks like my solar “savings” will soon be erased. We have American National Property and Casualty. They just paid out a huge claim on our car last year when a semi took out our car and 3 others on the 10 by the rest area and then drove off. They never found the guy but our insurance paid off very well. Hopefully they do that again. Johnathan was very helpful and professional. Today’s world…… that’s not the norm. Thanks again.

Sent from Ken's iPhone 12 Pro

On Mar 24, 2023, at 5:52 PM, Alex Anau <[email redacted]> wrote:

Hi Ken,

Yeah, those insurance guys aren’t too nice on tile roofs, but they’ll pay for the interior. When you get the claim, send it over and let’s see what we can ask them for. The roofing is really where we want to get them, but it’s likely you’ll only get some interior stuff here. But, there’s still some tricks there, so let’s look at it and we’ll get every last penny from them.

I’ll ask Yonathan if he has any pictures, I’m not sure what mounts you have up there right now. It’s really curious that you’d bring up solar mounts now of all times – they’ve been front of mind this week as we’re working on that house up the street. As a roofing company, we HATE solar, and as a result, we despite the contractors who install it as well. We’ve seen many leaks caused by solar directly and indirectly and, like you’ve deduced, it’s because of how they mount them. I actually apologized to CJ yesterday. When we started this project, I wouldn’t say I was mean, but I told him I wanted every one of those mounts off our roof before our guys did anything. I wanted the liability completely separated out from our roof, and if they were going to drill into the roof afterwards, it was going to be after everyone knew our roof was secure. CJ pushed back and explained a bit, so I agreed to look at them when we got there.

(sorry for the novel, but I think it helps)

With that being said, there is only ONE type of mount that I’m OK with, and your neighbor up the street had them. Roof jacks are those metal flashings that go over your sewer vents or any pipes that come up through the roof. They’re a simple, tried and true method that also cut through the tile, but then use the metal flashing to direct the water further down and away from the interior of the roof. The solar mounts on your neighbor’s roof (and the ONLY KIND I LIKE) are exactly those: mounts with roof jacks over them that the panels sit on. Check out the photo I attached – the roof jacks are on the left stacked up, and the solar mounts are on the right. This is the type of solar mount that is the least likely to leak, and I would wager is unlikely to leak. It’s the tried and true method that our guys are familiar with (so they know how to work with and around them), and is used on just about every roof ever constructed.

Long story short, this is the only type of mount that should be up there on a roof. When our guys got on this project and I saw the mounts, I apologized to CJ. Maybe he wasn’t around when yours were installed, or maybe the tech wasn’t there (the industry has definitely grown and learned a lot), but in my opinion anyone who is installing these types of mounts relatively knows what they’re doing and this is what she had. If you don’t have something similar, I would ask CJ for something similar, and if there’s evidence the previous mounts were letting water in under the tiles, asking him for the upgrade at little cost. That’s how I think you get yourself all the way out to 20+ years on the roof including the solar up there.

Haha the age ol’ question. You do have a pretty simple roof on the back there – I’d be OK to cover the cost of wood + tiles up to $500, and if we don’t reach that amount, we can deduct it from the quote. Not a lot, but hopefully helps a bit.

We do have a financing company we use, but the rates aren’t the best. I think the best deal they have going right now is a 10 year, 9.99% loan. I’d have to confirm, but it’d probably be $175/month or so.

I’m not sure how long you’ve owned your home, but if you bought it years ago, you can likely get a HELOC loan pretty easily. The owner here knows all about that stuff and he said US Bank has the lowest rates on a HELOC loan. They can likely get you down to a 7-8% rate. That’s probably the cheapest option, and then when rates go down again, you can probably get it down even cheaper.

The tiles might still be a problem unfortunately. It is SO HARD to find matching tiles right now. The boneyards in Phoenix (there’s 2) haven’t been this empty in something like 20 years the guys tell us. It’s getting a bit ridiculous, but we can always look.

While I was writing this (too) long e-mail, Yonathan sent some photos. I can’t see the mounts in his photos though. Ask CJ if the mounts are similar to the ones over at 504 E Black Diamond, if they are, then I think the mounts are pretty solid. With that being said, the solar folks still have to seal them well enough for it to matter, and they do still have screws that go into the trusses that are weak points. Yonathan did say it looks like it could be coming from a mount though because there’s nothing else really nearby. When we open the roof, we’ll be able to tell if it’s underlayment, or if it’s one of those mounts that’s causing a problem. While I think these are the least stupid mounts, you still have 30 holes in your roof which just creates a lot of possible failure points.

Sorry for the essay, but I hope it was helpful. Let me know how else I can help, you don’t do this very often so always important to do it right.

Alex

Castile Roofing

https://mail.google.com/mail/b/AEoRXRTA57lS7pMLBuZoCVm_KRGucRaFeyN0Pcnt-wZ1fl2amyYS/u/0/?ik=d3afebeda9&view=pt&search=all&per… 14/22 Received 2/12/24, 2:18 PM State of Arizona Mail - Citation 2023-10308 2/9/2024 ROC Legal

From: Ken Boldt <[email redacted]> Sent: Friday, March 24, 2023 5:27 PM To: Alex Anau <[email redacted]> Subject: Re: Castile Roofing - 3917 N Dorado Ln Estimate

Thanks Alex,

Your bid looks good. I have an insurance adjuster coming on Monday to look at roof. I doubt they help us out but it’s worth a try. The only question I have is on the mounting posts for the solar. I do believe they are the reason for the leaks. The way those posts were installed has baffled me since day one, and I let them know that 7 years ago. How can you not expect leaks when you cut 6 inch holes in the tiles. I know there are better ways (in my opinion) to fasten those posts and rails. I know they use a bracket that bolts under the upper tile and then extends below the tile to mount the post to. To me that seems like a 100% better system, but I’m not a roofer. Could you please give me your honest feelings about the present system and anything you suggest changing? I personally feel Streamline is making me pay a huge price for something they did. I’m not trying to cast stones at anyone, I just want to make sure the repair won’t need to be done in another 7-10 years. I would like your input and I will also speak to CJ on his thoughts. I know Streamline broke many tiles and some were

🤣 replaced with tiles that don’t match. I would like to replace those also. The only other matter I need to address is how to pay for $19k that I don’t seem to have in my billfold this AM . Do you guys work with any sort of financial institutions that you might recommend? If not, I will contact my bank. I do have an 835 credit score, so that is of no concern. I’m sure we will be giving you our business but may take a couples weeks to get everything in line. Again, Thanks Ken

Sent from Ken's iPhone 12 Pro

On Mar 24, 2023, at 4:28 PM, Alex Anau <[email redacted]> wrote:

Hi Ken,

Thanks for having us out the other day. The guys are making pretty good progress on our other house a block away if you've driven past there.

Attached is a quote for the back of your house as well as the patio. The only extra stuff on these is tiles and wood, both of which we won't really know until we open it up. On most homes though, these are usually going to be less than $500.

You likely have 40# felt up there which was the standard (and still somewhat is). We're big fans of the synthetic stuff these days. Much more resilient, doesn't tear as easily, and we think is going to last a good bit longer. That's all we put down these days.

Let me know if you have any questions I can answer. I'm pretty quick via e-mail, or by phone at (480) 933-8902.

Thanks,

Alex Castile Roofing <image001.jpg>

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Wes Ellington <[email redacted]> To: Alex Anau <[email redacted]> Cc: Aaron King <[email redacted]> Bcc: Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2023 00:09:56 +0000 Subject: Re: FW: Complaint 2023-10308 You don't often get email from [email redacted]. Learn why this is important Alex. The new inspection was done at my direction as the complainant had new evidence. You chose not to attend the inspection, then chose not to provide this info until the new directive had been Your choice at this point is to either do the corrective work from the directive, or do nothing and wait for your opportunity to request a hearing. At the hearing you can provide the additional doc judge and let the court decide.

https://mail.google.com/mail/b/AEoRXRTA57lS7pMLBuZoCVm_KRGucRaFeyN0Pcnt-wZ1fl2amyYS/u/0/?ik=d3afebeda9&view=pt&search=all&per… 15/22 Received 2/12/24, 2:18 PM State of Arizona Mail - Citation 2023-10308 2/9/2024 ROC Legal Wes Ellington #212 Assistant Chief of Investigations AZ Registrar of Contractors 1700 W Washington St. Ste 105 Phoenix, AZ 85007 Office: (602) 771-6755

Hours: Mon.- Fri. 8AM-5PM

The ROC is now on social media! Make sure to follow us on:

On Wed, Dec 27, 2023 at 11:29 AM Alex Anau <[email redacted]> wrote:

Hi Wes,

Aaron has responded to my below e-mail and basically refused to review the new evidence. We were only given 72 hours notice that a RE-inspection was going to happen. By the time we couldn’t make it. Regardless, I have evidence to the contrary of most of the items on this directive.

The customer was unhappy with the first directive and able to get his evidence reviewed and a second directive issued. We’re asking for the same right, and the answer I’m getting from Aa “too bad.” We should have the same rights in this case considering the evidence provided.

Below is my e-mail that addresses the staples and 2nd layer with evidence attached and included. It’s also worth noting that the first e-mail I sent to Aaron with some of this evidence was o him until today to call me back, and that was after I called the Roc multiple times. We have a deadline that we’re absolutely not trying to dodge, but it’s becoming difficult.

I’m also going to attach the photos I previously sent to Aaron that shows there is pre-flashing underneath every single penetration on that roof. I can provide more photos that establish this necessary, but it’s relatively clear. All the pre-flashing was already installed, there’s no reason for us to remove it.

The sealing around the penetrations and the lifted tiles on the patio are real issues that we’re happy to fix, but we have pretty good evidence here that the rest is inaccurate.

I’m at (480) 933-8902 if you have any questions. I also included Aaron’s e-mail sent this morning.

Thanks,

Alex

Castile Roofing

From: Alex Anau Sent: Saturday, December 23, 2023 9:22 AM To: Aaron King <[email redacted]> Cc: Alfonso Larriva™ <[email redacted]> Subject: FW: Complaint 2023-10308

I’ve tried calling in to open a formal appeal but am told that’s not a process. I’m really looking for some kind of response here as we’re close to our timeline and I’ve received none despite m being sent. I’ve provided evidence that all the penetrations have pre-flashing in my previous e-mail below, plus --

Here’s a signed statement from Owens Corning indicating that using staples through BATTENS is an acceptable method. Plastic cap nails were used as the primary fastener for the underla required. I also provided the same Eagle installation document that was used in the directive that also states using crown staples as fasteners for the BATTENS is an acceptable method (li needed https://eagleroofing.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/TRI-Installation-Guide-2015-1.pdf).

https://mail.google.com/mail/b/AEoRXRTA57lS7pMLBuZoCVm_KRGucRaFeyN0Pcnt-wZ1fl2amyYS/u/0/?ik=d3afebeda9&view=pt&search=all&per… 16/22 Received 2/12/24, 2:18 PM State of Arizona Mail - Citation 2023-10308 2/9/2024 ROC Attached is an e-mail before we started this job indicating to Ken in detail that we would leave the existing layer of underlayment if it was acceptable to do so, and him Legal responding to that e-m and Ken discussed this on-site numerous times, and then Yonathan and I also discussed it numerous times while we were on the jobsite. Transcribed phone calls are attached showing tha discussed this 2nd layer while doing the job on repeated occasions after Yonathan discussed with Ken in person. This was an agreed part of this job from the beginning, and the e-mails + c Plus, if you review all of the communications Ken sent during the job, you’ll see that he never once mentioned that 2nd layer being something he was concerned about despite bringing up va “issues” and even sending photos that show the 2nd layer yet not noting it as a problem.

We’re happy to re-seal the flashings to the roof and fix the few lifted tiles on the patio, those are real issues, but the other items listed here are clearly false as shown above. I’d really like th that went out on the job to be tagged in all of these communications, it’s necessary at this point as he apparently agrees with this directive despite all the evidence to the contrary.

From: Alex Anau Sent: Saturday, December 16, 2023 9:58 AM To: Alfonso Larriva™ <[email redacted]>; Aaron King <[email redacted]> Subject: RE: Complaint 2023-10308

Found it. Here’s evidence that all the penetrations – solar and regular – have pre-flashing. I’m not sure how we were penalized for having none when they’re clearly here.

We also have evidence that Ken was aware of the 2nd layer of underlayment throughout the entire process, it was discussed before and during the job. None of what we’re being accused o

From: Alex Anau <[email redacted]> Sent: Saturday, December 16, 2023 9:45 AM To: Alfonso Larriva™ <[email redacted]>; Aaron King <[email redacted]> Subject: RE: Complaint 2023-10308

Eagle’s own concrete tile installation instructions (referenced in the NEW DIRECTIVE) also say crown staples are fine FOR BATTENS -- https://eagleroofing.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/0 Guide-2015-1.pdf. (Page 9 “Reroofing” which references Page 8)

The solar posts all have PRE-FLASHING (this is called deck flashing in that same document) which can be verified if you guys want to remove the solar and check (Page 18). The regular p or may not but we can install them if need be, it’s a minor item.

You said the assistant chief came out on this one to do the inspection, yet we’ve been offered 0 contact with him. Seems proper he should be included in these discussions moving further a

From: Alfonso Larriva™ <[email redacted]> Sent: Friday, December 15, 2023 8:06 PM To: Aaron King <[email redacted]> Cc: Alex Anau <[email redacted]> Subject: RE: Complaint 2023-10308

We disagree with some of these items.

https://mail.google.com/mail/b/AEoRXRTA57lS7pMLBuZoCVm_KRGucRaFeyN0Pcnt-wZ1fl2amyYS/u/0/?ik=d3afebeda9&view=pt&search=all&per… 17/22 Received 2/12/24, 2:18 PM State of Arizona Mail - Citation 2023-10308 2/9/2024 It’s not clear to us that the manufacturers instructions on underlayment were interpreted correctly. ROC Legal The underlayment was affixed to the roof properly with nails with a plastic ring on them, and then staples were used to attach the batons to the roof.

Alex will have something written from the manufacturer, but the position they verbally expressed is that staples should not be used to attach the underlayment to the roof, but that acceptable and are commonly used to attach the batons to the roof.

We had approval by e-mail from Ken to install the underlayment over the old as a modifier to the written quite. We requested and he approved.

And then on the roof jacks Alex has commentary on these as well.

How long do we have to respond to this. I think you were presented with part of the story, but upon further study we believe that not all of the evidence, approvals, and manufacturers speci presented to make a complete and accurate decision.

From: Aaron King <[email redacted]> Sent: Monday, December 11, 2023 11:10 AM To: Alfonso Larriva™ <[email redacted]> Subject: Complaint 2023-10308

You don't often get email from [email redacted]. Learn why this is important

Based on the new information provided at the second inspection, the Written Directive has been amended. Please see the attached for details, you have until January 2, 2024 to complete t

Aaron King Investigator #232 AZ Registrar of Contractors 1700 W Washington St. Ste 105 Phoenix, AZ 85007 Office: (520) 628-6890

Hours: Mon.- Fri. 8AM-5PM

...

[Message clipped] View entire message

attachments

Second Layer 3.PNG 69K

Evidence of Pre-Flashing 1.jpg 185K

Evidence of Pre-Flashing 2.jpg 120K Evidence of Pre-Flashing 3.jpg 74K

Evidence of Pre-Flashing 4.jpg 92K

https://mail.google.com/mail/b/AEoRXRTA57lS7pMLBuZoCVm_KRGucRaFeyN0Pcnt-wZ1fl2amyYS/u/0/?ik=d3afebeda9&view=pt&search=all&per… 18/22 Received 2/12/24, 2:18 PM State of Arizona Mail - Citation 2023-10308 2/9/2024 Dorado New 1.jpg ROC Legal 291K

Dorado 8.jpg 179K

Dorado 7.jpg 397K

Dorado 4.jpg 408K

Dorado 5.jpg 175K

Dorado 6.jpg 489K

Dorado 2.jpg 185K

Dorado 3.jpg 384K

Dorado 9.jpg 618K

https://mail.google.com/mail/b/AEoRXRTA57lS7pMLBuZoCVm_KRGucRaFeyN0Pcnt-wZ1fl2amyYS/u/0/?ik=d3afebeda9&view=pt&search=all&per… 19/22 Received 2/12/24, 2:18 PM State of Arizona Mail - Citation 2023-10308 2/9/2024 ROC Legal

Dorado 10.jpg 577K

Dorado 11.jpg 265K

Dorado 15.jpg 328K

Dorado 14.jpg 303K

Dorado 13.jpg 277K Dorado 12.jpg 297K Dorado 18.jpg 263K Dorado 19.jpg 174K

Dorado Patio 2.jpg 254K

Dorado Patio 1.jpg 335K Dorado 17.jpg 174K Dorado 16.jpg 269K Flashing Jacks - 1.PNG 506K

Vent Stacks - 1.jpg 107K

Vent Stacks - 3.png 474K

https://mail.google.com/mail/b/AEoRXRTA57lS7pMLBuZoCVm_KRGucRaFeyN0Pcnt-wZ1fl2amyYS/u/0/?ik=d3afebeda9&view=pt&search=all&per… 20/22 Received 2/12/24, 2:18 PM State of Arizona Mail - Citation 2023-10308 2/9/2024 ROC Legal

Vent Stacks - 2.jpg 116K

Patio Roofline Tiles - 1.jpg 98K

Flashing Jacks - 1.PNG 506K

Vent Stacks - 1.jpg 107K

Vent Stacks - 3.png 474K

Vent Stacks - 2.jpg 116K

Patio Roofline Tiles - 1.jpg 98K

Second Layer 1 - Redacted.PNG 85K

Second Layer 2 - Redacted.PNG 83K

https://mail.google.com/mail/b/AEoRXRTA57lS7pMLBuZoCVm_KRGucRaFeyN0Pcnt-wZ1fl2amyYS/u/0/?ik=d3afebeda9&view=pt&search=all&per… 21/22 Received 2/12/24, 2:18 PM State of Arizona Mail - Citation 2023-10308 2/9/2024 Second Layer 3.PNG ROC Legal 69K

Folded Jacks 1.jpg 581K

Folded Jacks 2.jpg 269K Folded Jacks 3.jpg 274K

Folded Jacks 4.jpg 300K

2024-0209 - Citation 2023-10308 Response.docx 21K FW: Complaint 2023-10308 Directive.eml 10884K Re: Your Roof!.eml 1678K Re: Your Roof! - Offer To Replace Flashing Refused.eml 28K FW: Complaint 2023-10308.eml 3505K UDL 50 with Staples.pdf 126K Re: Castile Roofing - 3917 N Dorado Ln Estimate.eml 80K FW: Complaint 2023-10308.eml 720K RE: Evidence provided to me.eml 15868K Re: FW: Complaint 2023-10308.eml 167K Re: FW: FW: Complaint 2023-10308.eml 207K Letter to Castile.pdf 70K

https://mail.google.com/mail/b/AEoRXRTA57lS7pMLBuZoCVm_KRGucRaFeyN0Pcnt-wZ1fl2amyYS/u/0/?ik=d3afebeda9&view=pt&search=all&per… 22/22 Mediation Notice

Mediation Services Mediation services are available to the parties. What is Mediation? Mediation is a method of resolving disputes where the parties can end conflict without the expense and time associated with the full administrative process. Who Participates in During mediation, a mediator will attempt to help the Mediation? parties find an optimal solution to the conflict. Both parties must agree to participate in mediation, and both parties must bring a representative to mediation that has full authority to settle the entire matter. Mediation Is Not Neither the Registrar nor the Office of Administrative Mandatory Hearings will penalize a party for not agreeing to mediation. Where do the Parties The parties will meet at the Office of Administrative Meet for Mediation? Hearings to participate in mediation.

The Office of Administrative Hearings is located at 1400 West Washington, Suite 101, Phoenix, Arizona 85007. When does Mediation can occur after the Registrar issues a citation, but Mediation Occur? before the administrative hearing. Why Should Parties Mediation can be an alternative to the full administrative Consider Mediation? process. Mediation is beneficial because it is (1) time- efficient, (2) cost-effective, (3) confidential, and (4) capable of providing flexible solutions to complex problems. How to Request If the parties wish to mediate this case, they must file a Joint Mediation Request for Mediation with the Office of Administrative Hearings. A Joint Request for Mediation is included with this Mediation Notice. REGISTRAR OF CONTRACTORS OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA _________________________ Case No. _______________ COMPLAINANT,

v. JOINT REQUEST FOR MEDIATION _________________________ RESPONDENT.

REQUEST

The parties jointly request that this matter be referred to mediation in the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH). ☐ This matter is set for hearing on __________________(date). ☐ This matter is not currently set for hearing. MEDIATION AGREEMENT By requesting this mediation and signing below, the parties understand, represent, and agree: 1. The parties are prepared to commence mediation and will be ready for mediation on _____________________(date); 2. The parties will participate in the mediation process in good faith; 3. This request for mediation is not intended to hinder or delay administrative proceedings; 4. No party will contend that the mediation limits the power of OAH and its administrative law judges to conduct an administrative hearing and issue decisions under A.R.S. §§ 41-1092 – 1092.12; 5. The parties will be courteous and respectful throughout the mediation process to all participants; 6. The mediation is completely voluntary and the principal purpose is to allow the parties a full and fair opportunity to discuss settlement; of 3 REGISTRAR OF CONTRACTORS 1700 W. Washington St. Suite 105 – PHOENIX, AZ 85007-2812 Telephone (602)542-1525 1-877-692-9762 7. The mediator may conduct joint and separate meetings with the parties and may suggest resolutions to the parties’ dispute, but the mediator has no authority to impose a settlement upon the parties; 8. The mediation process is confidential. Communications made, material created for or used during, and acts occurring during mediation are confidential and may not be discovered or admitted into evidence in any proceeding except as provided by A.R.S. § 12-2238; 9. The mediator is not subject to service of process or a subpoena to produce evidence or to testify regarding any evidence or occurrence relating to the mediation except as provided in A.R.S. § 12-2238(C); 10. Neither the mediator, nor the Registrar of Contractors, nor the Office of Administrative Hearings is subject to civil liability for any act or omission in connection with any mediation service or activity except for acts involving

intentional misconduct or reckless disregard of a substantial risk of injury to the rights of others; 11. Throughout the mediation process, each party must have a representative present who will have full settlement authority to settle all claims at issue in the administrative

proceeding. 12. The mediation process will terminate when: a. The parties reach settlement; b. The mediator determines that further efforts at mediation are no longer likely

to achieve a settlement; or c. One of the parties withdraws from mediation. _____________________________________ _______________________ Complainant (or representative) Date

_____________________________________ _______________________ Respondent (or representative) Date

of 3 REGISTRAR OF CONTRACTORS 1700 W. Washington St. Suite 105 – PHOENIX, AZ 85007-2812 Telephone (602)542-1525 1-877-692-9762 PREHEARING DISCLOSURE STATEMENT INSTRUCTIONS ***DO NOT SUBMIT THESE INSTRUCTIONS WITH THE PREHEARING DISCLOSURE FORM***

ADMINISTRATIVE RULES A copy of the Arizona Administrative Code’s Rules for the Registrar of Contractors can be located on the Registrar’s Website.

PREHEARING DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENT Under A.A.C. R4-9-118(A), before a hearing, the parties must prepare a disclosure statement. The disclosure statement must contain: • A list of all the witnesses the party will call to testify, including the witnesses’ contact information and a brief description of the subject matter of the witnesses’ expected testimony; and • A list of all the exhibits that the party will use at the hearing.

FILE PREHEARING DISCLOSURE STATEMENTS • The Prehearing Disclosure Statements and Exhibits may be submitted to the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings using any of the following: • Electronically: https://portal.azoah.com/submission/ • In-Person or by Mail: 1740 West Adams Street, Lower Level, Phoenix, Arizona 85007

EXCHANGING DISCLOSURE STATEMENTS AND EXHIBITS Under A.A.C. R4-9-118(B) (effective November 5, 2017), a party to the hearing must serve on every other party and file with the Office of Administrative Hearings a copy of: • The disclosure statement; and, • Any exhibit that the party will use at the hearing. Service: The disclosure statement and exhibits must be served on all parties in accordance with Arizona Administrative Code R2-19-108 Filing Documents. Under A.A.C. R2-19-108, service is completed by: • Personal delivery; • 1st class, certified or express mail; or • Facsimile. Timing: The disclosure statement and the exhibits must be served and filed not less than seven calendar days before the date of the hearing. Under A.A.C. R2-19-108, a document is served on a party: • On the date it is personally served; • Five days after it is mailed by express or 1st class mail; • On the date of the return receipt if it is mailed by certified mail; or • On the date indicated on the facsimile transmission.

CONSEQUENCES FOR FAILING TO DISCLOSE Under A.A.C. R4-9-108(C), if a witness or an exhibit is not timely disclosed as required the rules, and good cause for the failure to disclose is not shown, then the administrative law judge may: • Order that certain witnesses or exhibits not be used at the hearing; • Order that a particular fact is or is not established for the record; or, • Order that a charge, a defense, a claim, or some portion thereof, be dismissed.

Form RC-L-800A Prehearing Disclosure Statement Rev. 10/08/2019 Instructions Form PREHEARING DISCLOSURE STATEMENT FORM RC-L-800A

PART 1: WITNESS LIST DOCKET NO. Under A.A.C. R4-9-118(A), before a hearing, a party must prepare a disclosure statement containing a list of all the witnesses the party will call to testify, including the witnesses’ contact information and a brief description of the subject matter of the witnesses’ expected testimony. If you need additional space to list all witnesses, complete and attach additional Witness Lists. Example 1. Name 2. Telephone Number 3. Email Address

John Doe (123) 456-7890 [email redacted] 4. Subject Matter of Expected Testimony

John Doe will testify regarding the poor workmanship and poor installation of the Garage Door. Mr. Doe will also testify regarding the invoices and change orders for the project.

Witness 1. Name 2. Telephone Number 3. Email Address

4. Subject Matter of Expected Testimony

Witness 1. Name 2. Telephone Number 3. Email Address

4. Subject Matter of Expected Testimony

Witness 1. Name 2. Telephone Number 3. Email Address

4. Subject Matter of Expected Testimony

Witness 1. Name 2. Telephone Number 3. Email Address

4. Subject Matter of Expected Testimony

Form RC-L-800A Prehearing Disclosure Statement Rev. 1/15/2019 Page 1 of 3 PART 2: EXHIBIT LIST DOCKET NO. Under A.A.C. R4-9-118(A), before a hearing, a party must prepare a disclosure statement containing a list of all the exhibits that the party will use at the hearing. Note: All exhibits listed below must be provided to all parties to the hearing. See A.A.C. R4-9-118(B). If you need additional space to list all witnesses, complete and attach additional Exhibit Lists. Example Contract for new garage door. Invoice #10001 – Cost for garage door replacement.

Exhibit Exhibit Name

Form RC-L-800A Prehearing Disclosure Statement Rev. 1/15/2019 Page 2 of 3 PART 3: ACKNOWLEDGEMENT & SIGNATURE I certify that the above information is true and correct and that I will serve a copy of this disclosure statement and any exhibits listed in Part 2 to all parties to the hearing in accordance with A.A.C. R4-9-118. I acknowledge and understand that if I fail to properly disclose a witness or exhibit, the administrative law judge may: • Order that certain witnesses or exhibits not be used at the hearing; • Order that a particular fact is or is not established for the record; or, • Order that a charge, a defense, a claim, or some portion thereof, be dismissed.

I am the (check one):  Complainant  Respondent Docket No.

Print Name Signature Date

Form RC-L-800A Prehearing Disclosure Statement Rev. 1/15/2019 Page 3 of 3