ALJDEC - Licensing

2023A-10945-NPC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2024-03-07

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

Winsupply of West Phoenix,

COMPLAINANT

v.

VAWLT Plumbing LLC

License No. ROC 335906,

RESPONDENT

No. 2023A-10945-NPC-ROC

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION

HEARING: February 16, 2024

APPEARANCES: Gregory Allen White, President and Owner, appeared on behalf of Complainant Winsupply of West Phoenix. Anthony Siqueiros, Owner and Qualifying Party, appeared on behalf of Respondent VAWLT Plumbing LLC.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Tammy L. Eigenheer

EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: Administrative Notice was taken of the Hearing Packet submitted by the Registrar of Contractors.

_____________________________________________________________________

FINDINGS OF FACT

VAWLT Plumbing LLC (Respondent) is the holder of License No. 335906 issued by the Registrar of Contractors (Registrar).

On or about September 18, 2023, Winsupply of West Phoenix (Complainant) filed a Complaint against Respondent with the Registrar alleging that Respondent had failed to pay Complainant the sum of $171,418.46 for plumbing supplies.

The parties were unable to resolve their differences, and Complainant requested an administrative hearing. The Registrar then issued a Citation for Alleged Violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(10).

Mr. White testified that the total due to Complainant at the time the complaint was filed was $171,418.46. Mr. White indicated that Complainant had received a large payment towards the balance due such that the balance due at the time of the hearing was $38,823.96.

Mr. Siqueiros admitted that Respondent owed Complainant $38,823.96 on the Dunkin Donuts project. Mr. Siqueiros asserted that Respondent had only been paid approximately $7,000.00 on the more than $45,000.00 contract. Mr. Siqueiros stated that Respondent lacked the capacity to pay the current amount due to Complainant.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

The burden of proof at an administrative hearing falls to the party asserting a claim, right, or entitlement and the standard of proof on all issues in these matters is by a preponderance of the evidence. See A.A.C. R2-19-119.

A preponderance of the evidence is “such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.” Morris K. Udall, Arizona Law of Evidence § 5 (1960).

A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(10) includes among the grounds for suspension, revocation, or other disciplinary action against a contractor’s license,

[f]ailure by a licensee or agent or official of a licensee to pay monies in excess of $750 when due for materials or services rendered in connection with the licensee's operations as a contractor unless the licensee proves that the licensee lacks the capacity to pay and has not received sufficient monies as payment for the particular construction work project or operation for which the services or materials were rendered or purchased.

Emphasis added.

The evidence established that Respondent owed a total of $38,823.96 for plumbing supplies provided.

While Respondent asserted that it lacked the capacity to pay Complainant the amount owed, Respondent failed to provide any evidence of the same.

Therefore, Complainant established that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(10) by failing to pay Complainant $38,823.96 for services or materials rendered in connection with Respondent’s contracting business.

Based upon Respondent’s violation of the provisions of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(10), grounds exist to impose discipline against Respondent’s license

RECOMMENDed order

Based on the foregoing, it is recommended that the Registrar suspend Respondent’s License No. 335906 issued by the Registrar until it has provided to the Registrar, and the Registrar has accepted, documents that establish that it has paid Complainant $38,823.96 in certified funds.

It is further recommended that when and if the Registrar receives and accepts Respondent’s evidence that it has paid Complainant $38,823.96 in certified funds, the Registrar may close the Complaint in Case No. 2023-10945.

Pursuant to A.R.S. § 41-1092.08(I), the licensee may accept the Administrative Law Judge Decision by advising the Office of Administrative Hearings in writing not more than ten (10) days after receiving the decision. If the licensee accepts the Administrative Law Judge Decision, the decision shall be certified as the final decision by the Office of Administrative Hearings.

In the event of certification of the Administrative Law Judge Decision by the Director of the Office of Administrative Hearings, the effective date of the Order will be forty (40) days from the date of that certification.

Done this day, March 7, 2024.

/s/ Tammy L. Eigenheer

Administrative Law Judge

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

Tom Cole, Director

Registrar of Contractors

Winsupply of West Phoenix

[email redacted]

VAWLT Plumbing LLC

[email redacted]

By: OAH Staff