ALJDEC - Licensing
2023A-12734-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2024-03-06
IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
Don Vedeen
COMPLAINANT,
v.
Structures Cabinet & Design LLC
License No. ROC 323443,
RESPONDENT.
No. 2023A-12734-CHC-ROC
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION
HEARING: February 15, 2024
APPEARANCES: Complainant Don Vedeen (Complainant) represented himself. Michael McCurdy represented Respondent Structures Cabinet & Design LLC (Respondent).
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Velva Moses-Thompson
EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: None.
_____________________________________________________________________
FINDINGS OF FACT
In February of 2023, Complainant and Respondent entered into a contract
wherein Respondent would build an office in Complainant’s home, for the amount of $18,079.90.
On February 14, 2023, Complainant paid Respondent a deposit in
the amount of $12,655.93 for the construction work.
Respondent did not perform work under the contract.
On or about November 5, 2023, Complainant filed a complaint with the
Arizona Registrar of Contractors (Registrar) alleging abandonment on the part
of Respondent. The complaint was assigned to Registrar Investigator Lisa Melton.
On or about November 15, 2023, Investigator Melton received a written
statement from Complainant attesting that she paid a deposit in the amount of
$12,655.93 to Respondent on February 14, 2023, but no work had been performed.
On November 15, 2023, Investigator Melton mailed the complaint to both
parties and advised that no work had been performed. Investigator Melton informed the parties that there would be no job-site inspection unless requested by Respondent.
Investigator Melton received no response from Respondent
On or about November 30, 2023, the Registrar issued a Citation against
Respondent’s license alleging that Respondent had violated Ariz. Rev. Stat. section 32-1154(A)(1).
15. Respondent filed a timely answer to the Citation.
16. The matter was referred to the Office of Administrative Hearings for an evidentiary hearing.
17. A hearing was held on February 15, 2024.
18. At hearing, Complainant testified on behalf of himself. Michael McCurdy, Respondent’s qualifying party, testified on behalf of Respondent. Investigator Melton testified regarding her investigation of the complaint.
19. Complainant explained that he paid Respondent a deposit that was close to 75% of the amount owed, but Respondent performed no work.
20. Mr. McCurdy did not dispute that Respondent failed to perform work under the contract. Mr. McCurdy testified to the effect that Respondent was unable to fulfill its obligations due to financial difficulty.
21. Administrative notice is taken of Respondent’s prior License record on March 6, 2024. Such prior License record reflects that Respondent’s License No. 323443 was first issued on February 4, 2019, and is active. Such prior License record also reflects that one complaint has resulted in discipline against Respondent’s license. Such prior License record also reflects that there are two other open complaints against Respondent’s license.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Registrar has jurisdiction over this matter, pursuant to A.R.S. § 32-1101, et seq., which authorizes the Registrar to impose disciplinary sanctions against licenses for violations of A.R.S. § 32-1154.
To warrant such sanctions by the Registrar, Complainant must demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated the statutory section cited. Proof by a “preponderance” means that “the evidence is sufficient to persuade the finder of fact that the proposition is more likely true than not.” In re: Arnold and Baker Farms, 177 B.R. 648 (9th Cir. BAP (Ariz.) 1994). See also Culpepper v. State of Arizona, 187 Ariz. 431, 930 P.2d 508 (App. 1996). It is “evidence which is of greater weight or more convincing than the evidence which is offered in opposition to it; that is, evidence which as a whole shows that the fact sought to be proved is more probable than not.” Black’s Law Dictionary 1182 (Rev. 6th ed. 1990).
The Administrative Law Judge may consider Registrar’s administrative
record. See Ariz. Admin. Code § R4-9-118.
4. The preponderance of the evidence shows that Respondent abandoned the contract, which is a 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 in this matter, License No. ROC 323443, held by Structures Cabinet & Design LLC, shall be suspended for five 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 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)(7), 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, March 6, 2024.
/s/ Velva Moses-Thompson
Administrative Law Judge
Transmitted by either mail, e-mail, or facsimile to:
Tom Cole, Director
Registrar of Contractors
Don Vedeen
[email redacted]
Structures Cabinet & Design LLC
[email redacted]
By: OAH Staff