ALJDEC - Licensing
2023A-12456-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2024-02-27
IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
Amanda White,
COMPLAINANT
v.
A&L Landscaping LLC
License No. ROC 329630,
RESPONDENT
No. 2023A-12456-CHC-ROC
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION
HEARING: February 8, 2024
APPEARANCES: Complainant Amanda White appeared on her own behalf. Respondent A&L Landscaping LLC did not appear.
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
A&L Landscaping (Respondent) is the holder of License No. 329630 issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (Registrar).
On or about April 21, 2023, Amanda White (Complainant) entered into a contract with Respondent for, among other things, the removal of a paver pad and installation of artificial turf. Complainant paid a deposit of $5,144.00.
According to the contract, the project was to begin in May of 2023; however, Respondent told Complainant that the project probably would not start until July or August 2023, because there were two or three yards in front of her.
As of September 17, 2023, Complainant still had not heard anything from Respondent. Complainant reached out to Respondent who told her that the project should start on or about October 1, 2023.
When Complainant had not heard from Respondent by October 6, 2023, she noted that Respondent’s license was suspended at that time.
On or about October 17, 2023, Respondent told Complainant that its license was not suspended and that work would start on October 20, 2023.
On October 20, 2023, Respondent did not begin work on the project.
On or about October 27, 2023, Complainant noted that Respondent’s license was listed as revoked on the Registrar’s website.
On or about October 28, 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 Mike Springer. After a jobsite inspection, Investigator Springer substantiated that no work had been performed on Complainant’s project.
On or about The Registrar issued a Citation against Respondent, charging possible violations of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(1).
The Registrar referred the matter to the Office of Administrative Hearings, an independent state agency, for an evidentiary hearing.
The Registrar issued a Notice of Hearing, setting a hearing at 1:00 p.m. on February 8, 2024. The Registrar mailed copies of the Notice of Hearing to Respondent at its address and email address of record. A January 10, 2024 order from the Office of Administrative Hearings advised the parties of how to connect to the hearing via Google Meet. The hearing was held via Google Meet on February 8, 2024.
Respondent did not request that the hearing be continued. Although the start of the hearing was delayed 15 minutes, Respondent did not appear through an authorized member, employee, or attorney. Consequently, Respondent did not present any evidence to defend its license.
Complainant testified that Respondent had not attempted to contact her after October 17, 2023. Complainant confirmed that she had paid a deposit of $5,144.00 and no work had been performed by Respondent.
Administrative notice is taken of Respondent’s prior License record on February 27, 2024. Such prior License record reflects that Respondent’s License No. 329630 was first issued on July 10, 2020, and is active. Such prior License record also reflects that there were two open complaints and two prior complaints resulting in discipline against Respondent’s license.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
This matter lies within the Registrar’s jurisdiction. See A.R.S. § 32-1101 et seq.
The copies of the Notice of Hearing that the Registrar mailed to Respondent at its address and email address of record were reasonable and Respondent is deemed to have received notice of the hearing. A.R.S. §§ 41-1092.04 and 41-1092.05(D).
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 submitted a bid for Complainant’s project and did not perform the work in the bid. Accordingly, Complainant established that Respondent abandoned the contract in violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(1).
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. 329630 for a period of five days.
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, February 27, 2024.
/s/ Tammy L. Eigenheer
Administrative Law Judge
Transmitted by either mail, e-mail, or facsimile to:
Tom Cole, Director
Registrar of Contractors
Mike Springer
[email redacted]
A&L Landscaping LLC
[email redacted]
Amanda White
3684 La Terraza Dr
Sierra Vista, AZ 85650
By: OAH Staff