ALJDEC - Licensing
2023A-12168-NPC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2024-04-08
IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
Tomik Electric LLC
DBA: ECO Management Systems
COMPLAINANT
v.
Standard Eco LLC
License No. ROC 332805,
RESPONDENT.
No. 2023A-12168-NPC-ROC
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION
HEARING: March 19, 2024
APPEARANCES: Isaac Curiel represented Complainant Tomik Electric, LLC. Elijah Chaffino represented Respondent Standard Eco LLC.
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Velva Moses-Thompson
EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: None.
_____________________________________________________________________
FINDINGS OF FACT
According to the Arizona Registrar of Contractors’ (the Registrar’s) public
website, on March 29, 2021, the Registrar issued License No. ROC 332805 for Specialty Dual CR-11 Electrical to Respondent.
According to the Registrar’s public website, on March 11, 2013, the Registrar
issued License No. ROC 283461 for Specialty Dual CR-11 Electrical to Complainant.
Isaac Curiel is the General Manager and Director of the Solar Division for
Complainant.
Elijah Chaffino is a member and owner of Respondent.
Complainant filed a complaint with the Registrar alleging that Respondent
failed to pay Complainant $33,855.68 for labor and materials provided to Respondent when payment became due.
On December 5, 2023, the Registrar issued a Citation against Respondent’s
license alleging that Respondent violated Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) § 32-1154 (A)(10).
Respondent filed a timely answer to the Citation.
The matter was referred to the Office of Administrative Hearings for an
administrative hearing.
A hearing was held on April 8, 2024.
At hearing, Complainant presented the testimony of Mr. Curiel and Amy
Ritter. Mr. Chaffino testified on behalf of Respondent.
Mr. Curiel explained that he was hired to install Tesla batteries and related
electrical components. Mr. Curiel stated that Complainant fully performed labor under its agreement with Respondent.
Mr. Chaffino stated that Respondent did not hire Complainant to perform
construction work. Mr. Chaffino explained that Respondent and Complainant entered into a joint venture to perform work for a third party. Mr. Chaffino stated that Respondent walked away from the partnership and failed to complete the construction work. Mr. Chaffino stated that Respondent issued invoices for profit, separate from labor and materials. Mr. Chaffino also stated that the invoices submitted to the Registrar were not the same invoices that were originally sent to Respondent. Mr. Chaffino testified to the effect that Respondent did not pay Complainant because Complainant did not compete the required work.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
A party asserting a claim, right, or entitlement bears the burden of proof; a party asserting an affirmative defense has the burden of establishing the affirmative defense. The standard of proof on all issues in this matter is that of a preponderance of the evidence. A.A.C. R2-19-119.
“At a hearing on an agency action to suspend, revoke, terminate or modify on its own initiative material conditions of a license or permit, the agency has the burden of persuasion.” A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2).
A preponderance of the evidence is:
The greater weight of the evidence, not necessarily established by the greater number of witnesses testifying to a fact but by evidence that has the most convincing force; superior evidentiary weight that, though not sufficient to free the mind wholly from all reasonable doubt, is still sufficient to incline a fair and impartial mind to one side of the issue rather than the other.
Black’s Law Dictionary 1373 (10th ed. 2014).
Statutes should be interpreted to provide a fair and sensible result. Gutierrez v. Industrial Commission of Arizona, 226 Ariz. 395, 249 P.3d 1095 (2011)(citation omitted); State v. McFall, 103 Ariz. 234, 238, 439 P.2d 805, 809 (1968) ("Courts will not place an absurd and unreasonable construction on statutes.").
“Statutes shall be liberally construed to effect their objects and to promote justice.” A.R.S.. § 1-211(B).
The purpose of the ROC’s licensing statutes is to protect the public from unscrupulous, unqualified, and financially irresponsible contractors. See Aesthetic Property Maintenance v. Capital Indem. Corp., 183 Ariz. 74, 900 P. 2d 1210 (1995).
A.R.S. § 32-1154(A) provides that:
The holder of a license or any person listed on a license pursuant to this chapter shall not commit any of the following acts or omissions: .... 10. Failure by a licensee or agent or official of a licensee to pay monies in excess of seven hundred fifty dollars when due for materials or services rendered in connection with the licensee's operations as a contractor when the licensee has the capacity to pay or, if the licensee lacks the capacity to pay, when the licensee has received sufficient monies as payment for the particular construction work project or operation for which the services or materials were rendered or purchased.
8. 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 . . . to pay monies in excess of seven hundred fifty dollars when due for materials or services rendered in connection with the licensee’s operations as a contractor when the licensee has the capacity to pay or, if the licensee lacks the capacity to pay, when the licensee has 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.
9. Upon review of the evidence submitted this case, Complainant provided insufficient evidence to establish that monies were in the amount of $33,855.68 for materials or services rendered to Respondent in connection with Respondent’s operations as a licensed contractor.
10. The preponderance of the evidence does not show that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(10) as alleged.
11. Therefore, the Administrative Law Judge does not find grounds to impose discipline against Respondent’s license.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Based on the foregoing, it is recommended that on the effective date of the Registrar’s Order, Complainant’s complaint be dismissed.
Pursuant to A.R.S. § 41-1092.08(I), the licensee may accept the Administrative Law Judge Decision by advising the Office of Administrative Hearings in writing not more than ten (10) days after receiving the decision. If the licensee accepts the Administrative Law Judge Decision, the decision shall be certified as the final decision by the Office of Administrative Hearings.
In the event of certification of the Administrative Law Judge Decision by the Director of the Office of Administrative Hearings, the effective date of the Order will be forty (40) days from the date of that certification.
Done this day, April 8, 2024.
/s/ Velva Moses-Thompson
Administrative Law Judge
Transmitted by either mail, e-mail, or facsimile to:
Tom Cole, Director
Registrar of Contractors
Standard Eco LLC
[email redacted]
Tomik Electric LLC
[email redacted]
By: OAH Staff