ALJDEC - Licensing

2023A-13889-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2024-07-01

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

Bradley Williams,

COMPLAINANT

v.

Black Bucket Drywall & Painting LLC

License Nos. ROC 339017 & 339018

RESPONDENT

No. 2023A-13889-CHC-ROC

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION

HEARING: June 11, 2024

APPEARANCES: Complainant Bradley Williams appeared on his own behalf. Nancy Baldenegro, Owner and Qualifying Party, appeared on behalf of Black Bucket Drywall & Painting 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

Black Bucket Drywall & Painting LLC (Respondent) is the holder of License No. 339017 and 339018 issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (Registrar).

On or about October 3, 2023, Carly Williams entered into a contract with Respondent for cabinet painting.

On or about December 10, 2023, the Registrar received a Complaint against Respondent from Bradley Williams (Complainant) alleging abandonment and poor work with respect to the project.

The Registrar assigned the complaint to Investigator Patricia Schuette. After a jobsite inspection, Investigator Schuette 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 February 9, 2024.

. . . .

DIRECTIVE REQUIREMENTS

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

Compliance Item: 1-The contractor paint gun broke and exploded all over out garage floor. Our garage floor is now stained with blue paint. The contractors stated they tried to fix it as best as they could, while using a small cheap interior broom and some kind of chemical which just made it worse.

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. There is remnants of the paint that appeared to be on two sections of the concrete in the garage. It was apparent that an attempt to clean it up was made but unsuccessful. Respondent mentioned that a claim to their insurance was submitted for the damage. Respondent to correct within appropriate means.

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

Compliance Item: 3-Damaged one of our cabinet doors. The contractor put some kind of putty or something similar and used their finger to smear it across the bottom of the cabinet.

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. It is unknown if the damage was present prior to the Respondents painting however, the surface should have been prepped properly before painting. Respondent to repair within appropriate means.

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

Compliance Item: 6-The contractors left paint marks inside the cabinets along with the top layer of wood peeled off.

Investigator’s Observation: Partially verified. There is a small paint smear in one of the upper wall cabinets on the base shelf. Respondent to repair within appropriate means. There is not sufficient evidence to support the claim that the torn veneer on the inside of the same cabinet was caused by the Respondent. The smeared paint is over the top of the torn area.

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

On or about February 9, 2024, Investigator Schuette issued an amended written directive to Respondent that extended the deadline for compliance to February 16, 2024.

Following the issuance of the written directive, Respondent attempted to address the items in the written directive. After the deadline in the directive expired, Investigator Schuette was notified the corrective work had not been completed.

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(A); and A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22).

Investigator Schuette testified that Respondent had attempted to correct the paint in the garage, but the efforts were not in compliance with the Registrar’s standards. As to the two other items, Respondent did not make any attempt to correct the items.

Ms. Baldenegro admitted that an accident with the paint gun occurred and they immediately notified the homeowners about it. Ms. Baldenegro testified that Respondent had attempted to address the paint in the garage. Ms. Baldenegro stated that Respondent had hired a company from Las Vegas, Nevada specifically to remove the paint, but it was unsuccessful.

Administrative notice is taken of Respondent’s prior License record on July 1, 2024. Such prior License record reflects that Respondent’s License No. 339017 was first issued on June 28, 2022, and was suspended on March 12, 2024 for non-renewal. Such prior License record also reflects that there were no other open or prior complaints against Respondent’s license. Respondent’s License No. 339018 was first issued on June 28, 2022, and was suspended on July 1, 2024 for non-renewal. Such prior License record also reflects that there were no open or prior complaints 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’s work was not in conformity with the Registrar’s standards. Therefore, Complainant established that Respondent did not complete the project in a workmanlike manner in violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(A).

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 suspend Respondent’s License No. 339017 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 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, July 1, 2024.

/s/ Tammy L. Eigenheer

Administrative Law Judge

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

Tom Cole, Director

Registrar of Contractors

Bradley Williams

[email redacted]

Patricia Schuette

[email redacted]

Black Bucket Drywall & Painting LLC

[email redacted]

By: OAH Staff