ALJDEC - Licensing

2023A-13105-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2024-12-30

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

Christopher Sasso,

COMPLAINANT

Integrity Steel Company LLC

License No. ROC 336643,

RESPONDENT

No. 2023A-13105-CHC-ROC

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION

HEARING: December 9, 2024

APPEARANCES: Complainant Christopher Sasso appeared on his own behalf. Nicholas Lammers, Owner and Qualifying Party, appeared on behalf of Respondent Integrity Steel Company 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

Integrity Steel Company LLC (Respondent) is the holder of License No. 336643 issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (Registrar).

On or about March 14, 2023, Christopher Sasso (Complainant) entered into a contract with Respondent for the construction of metal building on his property.

On or about November 13, 2023, the Registrar received a Complaint against Respondent from Complainant alleging abandonment with respect to the project.

The Registrar assigned the complaint to Investigator David Fagerburg.

On or about January 9, 2024, Investigator Fagerburg conducted a jobsite inspection.

On or about January 18, 2024, Investigator Fagerburg 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 Thursday February 15, 2024.

. . . .

DIRECTIVE REQUIREMENTS

You are directed to remedy the following violations by the appropriate means:

Compliant Item 1: Contractor applied for permit on 6/5/23. County reviewed permit and requested revisions on 6/23/23. Contractors has not responded to revision request nor paid the permit fees.;

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. Per the written contract the respondent shall procure and provide any required engineering and/or plans to the local building authority for approval, obtain a permit and complete the project per contract.

Governing Rule: ARS §32-1154 (A) (1) (Abandonment), ARS §32-1154 (A) (3) namely R4-9-108, Poor work not performed in accordance with professional industry standards.

Compliant Item 2: Contractor has taken a deposit of 32,406.24 and a second payment of 20,000 and has not started any work.

Governing Rule: ARS §32-1154 (A) (1) (Abandonment), ARS §32-1154 (A) (3) namely R4-9-108, Poor work not performed in accordance with professional industry standards.

Following the issuance of the written directive, the parties agreed to an extension of the deadline for compliance. The new deadline for compliance was March 18, 2024.

On or about April 15, 2024, the floodplain permit was issued.

On or about May 1, 2024, the building permit was issued by the Maricopa County Planning and Development Department.

On or about May 3, 2024, Investigator Fagerburg closed the complaint after being notified the necessary permits had been issued.

On or about June 4, 2024, Investigator Fagerburg reopened the complaint after being notified the project had not been completed.

On or about June 14, 2024, Investigator Fagerburg conducted a jobsite inspection.

On or about June 20, 2024, Investigator Fagerburg issued a written directive to Respondent that provided as follows:

. . . .

Investigator Note:

1: This complaint was closed May 3, 2024 after the respondent secured permit B202305883 issued by the Maricopa County Planning and Development Department on May 1, 2024 and Floodplain permit FP20230170 issued April 15, 2024 for the project with a note on the formal close letter; The complainant was informed that this complaint will be closed after a copy of the permits have been received. If the project has been completed within 6 months and there are poor workmanship or abandonment allegations the complainant may request to reopen the complaint with a list of items the complainant feels needs to be corrected and another jobsite inspection will be scheduled. If after 6 months a new complaint must be filed.

Complaint Narrative: Well it looks like Nick is back to his old ways again. I have been trying to get a hold of him for 30 days and no response. I also have been contacted by four other of his clients all with ROC complaints against him. I am sure there are more. He also has ROC complaints from sub contractors who haven’t been paid from Nick . I would like my case re- open. The five of us are planning to meet up in the next few weeks with plans of getting the news to do a report on all of us, how to get the attorney general involved and also doing a combined law suit against him. I would like if Your interested in attending the meeting or someone from the ROC and also if you have any suggestions on a lawyer who we can use that if familiar with this type of criminal case

DIRECTIVE REQUIREMENTS

You are directed to remedy the following violations by the appropriate means:

Compliant Item 1: Contractor applied for permit on 6/5/23. County reviewed permit and requested revisions on 6/23/23. Contractors has not responded to revision request nor paid the permit fees.; Contractor has taken a deposit of 32,406.24 and a second payment of 20,000 and has not started any work. Contractor has not been in communication as to the status of the permit or project. Contractor is not returning calls.

Investigator’s Observation: At this reopen jobsite investigation I observed a building pad started at the location for the project on the west side of the complainant’s home. Both parties agree the respondent delivered and spread 3 loads of dirt, approximately 10% of the dirt required, to start the project soon after the permit was issued May 1, 2024 with no further work performed. See P (3) thru P (7). During this jobsite investigation the respondent acknowledged that there is an estimated 15 loads of dirt or more are needed to establish the building pad that is in a flood plain. The respondent stated that the reason for the delay is due the availability of fill dirt. The complainant stated that he has located an excavation contractor that can provide the required fill dirt and will make arrangements to secure the dirt within 2 weeks. The respondent shall make a concerted effort to continue and complete the project in a timely manner per the written contract dated March 14, 2023 by appropriate means.

Governing Rule: ARS §32-1154 (A) (3) namely R4-9-108, Poor work not performed in accordance with professional industry standards, ARS §32-1154 (A) (8) Failure in a material respect by the licensee to complete a construction project.

Please direct all questions regarding this Directive to the undersigned Investigator.

Following the issuance of the written directive, the parties agreed to an extension of the deadline for compliance. The new deadline for compliance was August 5, 2024.

On or about August 6, 2024, the parties agreed to an extension of the deadline for compliance. The new deadline for compliance was August 22, 2024.

On or about August 23, 2024, Investigator Fagerburg was notified no further work had been done on the project. Investigator Fagerburg then forwarded the matter to the Legal Department for issuance of a citation.

The Registrar issued a citation against Respondent, charging possible violations of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(1), A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(8), and A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22).

Investigator Fagerburg testified that Respondent had delivered approximately ten percent of the dirt required for the project and fifteen or more loads would still be required.

Complainant testified that after August 23, 2024, Respondent was no longer welcome on the project.

Mr. Lammers testified that Respondent was ready to go forward with the project when Complainant kicked them off the job.

Administrative notice is taken of Respondent’s prior License record on December 30, 2024. Such prior License record reflects that Respondent’s License No. 336643 was first issued on February 11, 2022, and was revoked on December 30, 2024. Such prior License record also reflects that there were three open complaints, two prior resolved/settled 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.

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 and failed to complete the project for the price stated in the contract in violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(1) and A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(8).

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 revoke Respondent’s License No. 336643.

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, December 30, 2024.

/s/ Tammy L. Eigenheer

Administrative Law Judge

Transmitted by either mail, e-mail, or facsimile to:

Tom Cole, Director

Registrar of Contractors

David Fagerburg

[email redacted]

Integrity Steel Company LLC

[email redacted]

Christopher Sasso

[email redacted]

By: OAH Staff