ALJDEC - Licensing
2023A-11669-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2024-08-21
IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
Brooke Stebbins,
COMPLAINANT
v.
Hardrives LLC
License No. ROC 322705,
RESPONDENT
No. 2023A-11669-CHC-ROC
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION
HEARING: August 1, 2024
APPEARANCES: Complainant Brooke Stebbins appeared on her own behalf. Thomas Carroll, Owner and Qualifying Party, appeared on behalf of Respondent Hardrives 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
Hardrives LLC (Respondent) is the holder of License No. 322705 issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (Registrar).
On or about August 22, 2023, Brooke Stebbins (Complainant) entered into a contract with Respondent for work to be performed on her driveway.
On or about October 8, 2023, the Registrar received a Complaint against Respondent from Complainant alleging poor work with respect to the project.
The Registrar assigned the complaint to Investigator Jim Dimond. After a jobsite inspection, Investigator Dimond issued a written directive to Respondent that provided as follows:
After investigation, the Registrar determined that you failed to meet the requirements of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A), and now issues this Directive requiring you to take appropriate corrective action. Failure to comply with this Directive constitutes a violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22) and may result in the issuance of a citation, discipline of your license, and a civil penalty pursuant to A.R.S. § 32-1154(E) of up to $500.00. You must notify the Registrar’s assigned Investigator of your compliance with this Directive prior to 5:00 p.m. on Friday, April 5, 2024.
. . . .
DIRECTIVE REQUIREMENTS
You are directed to remedy the following violations by the appropriate means:
Compliance Item: 2 - Aggregate is crumbling in multiple areas.
Investigator’s Observation: The edges of the installation that are not up against structure and clearly too thin.
Additionally there is an east/west crack on the west end of the drive that should be addressed.
The respondent is to correct the condition in an appropriate manner.
. . . .
Compliance Item: 3 - Aggregate is uneven and has multiple voids that retain water
Investigator’s Observation: There are number of areas throughout have pockets of aggregate that is exposed.
The tie in at the road has dips and unraveling.
The respondent is to correct the condition in an appropriate manner.
Following the issuance of the written directive, Respondent performed work on the project; however, Respondent did not correct the issues appropriately. After the deadline in the directive expired, Investigator Dimond was notified the corrective work had been attempted.
On or about May 15, 2024, Investigator Dimond performed a compliance jobsite inspection. At that time, Investigator Dimond made the following observations of the project:
In viewing the work, the edges had been redone with a thicker edge however it appears that the respondent cut the pavement about 6” into the installation and the blend line is poorly done.
It appears that the rock pockets and cracks have been corrected.
The big remaining issue is that the respondent opted on his own to seal the entire surface.
Unfortunately the sealer is ‘alligatoring’ severely, has track in it, has roller marks in it and the overall appearance is very poor.
Additionally, in order to try to improve a section in front of the garage, excess material was removed and now a dip is present.
The installation is in worse condition than it was at the issuance of the directive.
The Registrar issued a Citation against Respondent, charging possible violations of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(A); and A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22).
Investigator Dimond testified that the project looked worse at the compliance jobsite inspection than it did at the initial jobsite inspection.
Complainant testified consistently with Investigator Dimond’s observations.
Mr. Carroll admitted that the attempt to perform the corrective work failed and that it was “extremely poorly done.” Mr. Carroll acknowledged he was not required to put the sealer down on the driveway and doing so caused more problems.
Administrative notice is taken of Respondent’s prior License record on August 21, 2024. Such prior License record reflects that Respondent’s License No. 322705 was first issued on November 23, 20218, and is active. Such prior License record also reflects that there were three open complaints and two resolved/settled complaints against Respondent’s license.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
This matter lies within the Registrar’s jurisdiction. See A.R.S. § 32-1101 et seq.
Complainant bears the burden of proof to establish Respondent’s statutory violations by a preponderance of the evidence. See A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2); A.A.C. R2-19-119(A) and A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1); see also Vazzano v. Superior Court, 74 Ariz. 369, 372, 249 P.2d 837 (1952). “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).
The evidence established that Respondent’s work was not in conformity with the Registrar’s standards. Therefore, Complainant established that Respondent did not complete the project in a workmanlike manner in violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(A).
The evidence established that Respondent did not complete the corrective work following the Directive being issued. Therefore, Complainant established that Respondent failed to take appropriate corrective action following a written directive from the Registrar in violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22).
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Based on the foregoing, it is recommended that on the effective date of the Order, the Registrar shall suspend Respondent’s License No. 322705 for a period of three days.
It is further recommended that the Registrar require Respondent to pay the sum of $500.00 as a civil penalty pursuant to A.R.S. § 32-1154(E).
It is further recommended that if Respondent fails to pay the entire amount of the civil penalty on or before thirty days following the effective date of the Registrar’s final order, the Registrar revoke Respondent’s license, effective on such deadline date. No future license shall be issued to any entity consisting of persons associated with Respondent, as defined in A.R.S. § 32-1101(A)(5), unless Respondent tenders payment of any outstanding prior civil penalty.
Pursuant to A.R.S. § 41-1092.08(I), the licensee may accept the Administrative Law Judge Decision by advising the Office of Administrative Hearings in writing not more than ten (10) days after receiving the decision. If the licensee accepts the Administrative Law Judge Decision, the decision shall be certified as the final decision by the Office of Administrative Hearings.
In the event of certification of the Administrative Law Judge Decision by the Director of the Office of Administrative Hearings, the effective date of the Order will be forty (40) days from the date of that certification.
Done this day, August 21, 2024.
/s/ Tammy L. Eigenheer
Administrative Law Judge
Transmitted by either mail, e-mail, or facsimile to:
Tom Cole, Director
Registrar of Contractors
Brooke Stebbins
[email redacted]
Hardrives LLC
[email redacted]
Jim Dimond
[email redacted]
By: OAH Staff