ALJDEC - Licensing

2023A-13797-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2024-06-19

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

Ted Miller,

COMPLAINANT,

Paratrooper Plumbing LLC,

License No. ROC 335618,

RESPONDENT.

No. 2023A-13797-CHC-ROC

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION

HEARING: May 30, 2024

APPEARANCES: Ted Miller appeared, representing himself. Brett Larned appeared representing himself. ROC Investigator Albert Bernal testified.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Kay A. Abramsohn

EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: ROC Notice of Hearing with attachments (Administrative Record or AR).

_____________________________________________________________________

FINDINGS OF FACT

Paratrooper Plumbing LLC (Respondent) is the holder of License No. 335618, CR-37 Plumbing, issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (Registrar) in November of 2021.

On or about April 21, 2023, Ted Miller (Complainant) entered into a contract with Respondent for multiple installation items, including a tankless water heater, pump station, multiple underground rough-ins and top outs (and finishes), and filtration system. The contract amount was $21,637.63.

The Registrar received a Complaint against Respondent from Complainant alleging abandonment and poor work/incomplete work with respect to the project.

The Registrar assigned the complaint to Investigator Albert Bernal. Mr. Bernal scheduled and noticed a jobsite inspection for January 19, 2024. Investigator Bernal documented the construction work as of that date on the site.

Respondent did not appear for the job site inspection.

On January 17, 2024, Investigator Bernal issued a written directive (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 February 9th, 2024.

RESTRICTIONS

• You may not perform or hire other contractors to perform work that is outside the scope of your license.

• If your license is currently suspended for administrative reasons, or is inactive, expired, or cancelled, you may not perform any corrective work nor contract in any manner, which includes hiring other contractors to perform work, until the suspension of your license(s) has been lifted or your license(s) has been reactivated.

DIRECTIVE REQUIREMENTS

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

Complaint Item: 3 - Deposit made for water heaters and sewer pump

materials, not delivered

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. Water heater and sewer pump

were not on site.

Respondent shall complete water heater and sewer pump as per original

contract agreement, properly executed change orders, verbal agreements, and local building codes and manufacturer’s installation instructions.

Governing Rule: 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, Respondent did not perform any corrective work.

On March 4, 2024, the Registrar issued a Citation against Respondent, charging possible violations of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(1), and A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22).

The Registrar referred the matter to the Office of Administrative Hearings, an independent state agency, for an evidentiary hearing.

On March 27, 2024, the Registrar issued its Notice of Hearing, setting a hearing at 9:00 a.m. on May 3, 2024. The Registrar mailed copies of the Notice of Hearing to Respondent at his address and email address of record.

On or about April 5, 2024, the Office of Administrative Hearings issued an order by email advising the parties the hearing would be conducted virtually by videoconference or telephone via Google Meet and providing the instructions to connect to the hearing.

The hearing was convened and conducted through Google Meet on May 3, 2024.

At the time of the hearing, Investigator Bernal testified regarding his involvement in the matter; he addressed the job site inspection and the three verified items that needed to be addressed by Respondent.

Complainant testified regarding the failure of Respondent to respond to communications and to unexpected delays he had experienced, arguing that Respondent had effectively abandoned the project. Complainant noted that he had proposed a settlement to Respondent after the Directive. Complainant indicated that he was still willing to make that settlement.

The parties then discussed the matter off the record and determined to settle the matter with Respondent returning a 70% portion of the deposit.

The Tribunal held the record open for Complainant to subsequently confirm that the matter was settled as the parties had discussed at the time of the hearing.

On May 16, 2024, Complainant advised the Tribunal that Respondent had not fulfilled the settlement as had been discussed at the time of the hearing.

Administrative notice is taken of Respondent’s prior License record as of June 19, 2024. Such prior License record reflects that Respondent’s License No. 335618 was first issued on November 19, 2021 and was suspended effective December 1, 2023 due to nonrenewal. Such prior License record also reflects that there were two open complaints against Respondent’s license.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

This matter lies within the Registrar’s jurisdiction. See A.R.S. § 32-1101 et seq.

The copy of the Notice of Hearing that the Registrar mailed to Respondent at Respondent’s 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 performed construction work on Complainant’s project which work was not complete and not in compliance with workmanship standards and, further, that Respondent failed to correct with work within the time frame of the Directive. Therefore, Complainant established both that Respondent’s work was not in conformity with the Registrar’s standards and that Respondent did not complete the project, essentially abandoning the project in violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(1).

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 suspend Respondent’s License No. 335618 for a period of three 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 final order, the Registrar shall 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.

-54864001

001

-137160-45720000Done this day, June 19, 2024.

/s/ Kay A. Abramsohn

Administrative Law Judge

Transmitted electronically to:

Tom Cole, Director

Registrar of Contractors

Albert Bernal, Investigator

[email redacted]

Ted Miller

[email redacted]

Paratrooper Plumbing LLC

[email redacted]

By: OAH Staff