ALJDEC - Licensing
2023A-12943-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2024-06-12
IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
Parag Rami ,
COMPLAINANT
v.
Legacy Contracting LLC
License No. ROC 333553,
RESPONDENT
No. 2023A-12943-CHC-ROC
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION
HEARING: Convened and concluded on May 23, 2024.
APPEARANCES:
For Complainant: Timothy Holt, Parag Rami, and Deborah Rami.
For Respondent: No appearance.
For the Registrar of Contractors: Investigator Daniel Edwards.
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Samuel Fox
EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE:
Administrative notice was taken of the Hearing Packet submitted by the Registrar of Contractors.
Complainant’s Exhibits 1 through 6.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Legacy Contracting LLC (Respondent) is the holder of License No. 333553 issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (Registrar).
On or about June 3, 2022, Parag Rami (Complainant) entered into a contract with Respondent for, among other things, construction of a wall and installation of travertine pavers.
On or about November 12, 2023, Complainant filed a Licensed Complaint Form with the Registrar, claiming Respondent abandoned the project.
The Registrar assigned the complaint to Investigator Daniel Edwards, who issued a Jobsite Inspection Notice on November 13, 2023, scheduling the inspection for November 27, 2023.
Investigator Edwards conducted the jobsite inspection on November 27, 2023. Following the investigation, Investigator Edwards issued a Written Directive From the Registrar to Respondent on December 5, 2023 that provided as follows:
You are directed to remedy the following violations by the appropriate means:
Compliance Item: 1 - Block wall construction has not even started, despite signing contract 17 months ago
Investigator’s Observation: Substantiated. None of the work quoted in the contract appears to have been started. Initial quote for the project appears to have been issued to the complainant in April of 2022. Representatives for respondent stated that they had scheduled a meeting with an engineer the same day of the inspection so that they will be able to submit an additional permit with the City of Peoria. Work does not appear to be proceeding in a diligent manner given the length of time this project has been contracted. Respondent shall ensure all work is completed. per contract and any subsequent change orders, by appropriate means, and address any and all issues outlined by the building official in order to secure any needed permits and pass final inspection by appropriate means.
The Written Directive required Respondent to notify Investigator Edwards of Respondent’s compliance with the directive prior to 5:00 p.m. on January 5, 2024.
Investigator Edwards testified that, on January 5, 2024, Respondent requested an extension for compliance with the Written Directive, which Investigator Edwards denied for failure to show sufficient cause, and on January 11, 2024, Complainant informed Investigator Edwards that no corrective work had been performed on the project.
On January 16, 2024, 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(B); and A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22).
Respondent submitted an Answer to the Citation on January 31, 2024. Respondent’s Answer included documents that the Registrar was unable to open. The Registrar requested documents in a different format, but Respondent did not resubmit the documents.
The Registrar referred the matter to the Office of Administrative Hearings, an independent state agency, for an evidentiary hearing.
On February 13, 2024, the Registrar issued a Notice of Hearing on Contested Case setting the hearing at 9:00 a.m. on March 29, 2024. The Registrar mailed the Notice of Hearing to Respondent at its address and email address of record. During the investigation, Investigator Edwards achieved communication with Respondent using the same address and email address.
On or about March 7, 2024, Respondent requested that the hearing be continued due to a scheduling conflict with another case it had pending before the Office of Administrative Hearings.
On or about March 21, 2024, the parties were notified the hearing was continued to 9:00 a.m. on May 23, 2024. The order granting the continuance 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 May 23, 2024.
Respondent did not request that the hearing be further 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.
Investigator Edwards testified that Respondent did not perform the work as required under the contract and that there was no valid justification for the delay.
Complainant testified that Complainant entered a contract with Respondent to build a block wall, among other things. Complainant provided a ten thousand dollar ($10,000) down payment, and nearly one year later, Complainant provided a subsequent payment for forty thousand dollars ($40,000). Complainant provided documents to support the monetary contentions. Respondent has not performed according to the contract.
Respondent failed to appear at the Hearing. Respondent’s Answer claimed the existence of records that demonstrate Respondent’s compliant and professional efforts to complete the project. However, no evidence was entered into the record supporting those claims.
Administrative notice was taken of Respondent’s prior License record on May 28, 2024. According to that record, Respondent’s License No. 333553 was first issued on June 2, 2021; it was revoked on May 15, 2024; and there were nine open complaints, one disciplined case, and four resolved/settled complaints against Respondent’s license.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Respondent is deemed to have received the Notice of Hearing by methods reasonably calculated to effect notice. The Registrar mailed copies of the Notice of Hearing on Contested Case to its address and email address of record, and the Office of Administrative Hearings sent the order setting the continued hearing date to Respondent at its email address of record.
This matter lies within the Registrar’s jurisdiction.
Respondent’s revoked license does not deprive Complainant of his right to prosecute his complaint or prevent the Registrar from determining the merits of the complaint.
Complainant bears the burden of proof to establish Respondent’s statutory violations by a preponderance of the evidence.
“A preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.”
The evidence established that Respondent did not perform the work in accordance with professional industry standards in violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(B).
The evidence established that Respondent did not attempt to 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 revoke Respondent’s License No. 333553.
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).
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, June 12, 2024.
/s/ Samuel Fox
Administrative Law Judge
Transmitted by either mail, e-mail, or facsimile to:
Tom Cole, Director
Registrar of Contractors
Parag Rami
8375 W La Caille
Peoria, AZ 85383
[email redacted]
Legacy Contracting LLC
12211 W Bell Rd, Suite 204
Surprise, AZ 85378
[email redacted]
By: OAH Staff