ALJDEC - Licensing
2023A-13997-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2024-06-04
IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
Eric Larsen
COMPLAINANT,
v.
Mariposa Painting LLC
License No. ROC 307798,
RESPONDENT.
No. 2023A-13997-CHC-ROC
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION
HEARING: May 15, 2024
APPEARANCES: Sean Moynihan, Esq. represented Complainant Eric Larsen (Complainant). Leticia Campas represented Respondent Mariposa Painting LLC.
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Velva Moses-Thompson
EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: Complainant’s Exhibits A, B, C, H, and I.
_____________________________________________________________________
FINDINGS OF FACT
On March 29, 2024, the Registrar of Contractors, (Registrar), issued
a Notice of Hearing setting the above-captioned matter for hearing on May 15, 2024, by the Office of Administrative Hearings in Phoenix, Arizona.
The Notice of Hearing shows that the hearing was set to consider the
charges made in the Citation and Complaint.
Through the Citation, the Registrar alleges that Respondent may have
violated Ariz. Rev. Stat. section 32-1154(A)(3)(specifically, Ariz. Admin. Code section R4-9-108(A); Ariz. Rev. Stat. section 32-1154(A)(1).
6. The Citation shows that if the Administrative Law Judge finds that the alleged charges are valid, the Registrar may suspend or revoke Respondent’s license.
7. On or about December 4, 2022, Wingview at Del Lago Homeowners Association (Association) and Respondent entered into a contract wherein Respondent agreed to pain the view fences in Wingview at Del Lago for the for the amount of $24,500.00. The Association paid Respondent $12,250 under the contract.
8. On February 13, 2023, Respondent started work.
9. On March 13, 2023, Respondent stopped work.
12. On or about December 8, 2023, the Registrar received a Complaint from Complainant alleging abandonment on the part of Respondent. Complainant is the President of Board for the Association.
13. On or about, Registrar Investigator Mike Springer conducted a jobsite
inspection. Investigator Springer substantiated two items in the complaint, including abandonment. However, Investigator Springer did not issue a Directive to Respondent because Respondent recently filed for bankruptcy.
19. Respondent filed a timely response to the Citation.
20. The matter was referred to the Office of Administrative Hearings for an evidentiary hearing.
20. At hearing, Complainant testified on himself. Leticia Campas testified on behalf of Respondent. Investigator Springer testified regarding his investigation of the complaint.
21. Investigator Springer explained that at the job-site inspection, he walked the jobsite looked at work that was completed and noticed that the fences were starting to rust and deteriorate. Investigator Springer observed that 75% to 80% of the work was not completed or attempted. Investigator Springer explained that the paint work should last at least two years. However, the new paint applied by Respondent was already beginning to rust around the joints.
22. Complainant explained that Respondent performed poor work and failed complete the job. Complainant explained the Association is response for the maintenance of the view fences.
23. Ms. Campas explained that Respondent was unable to complete the work due to financial challenges and events in her personal life.
24. Administrative notice is taken of the Registrar’s public website. According to the information available on the website on June 4, 2024, Respondent’s license was first issued on August 15, 2016, and is suspended. Such prior License record also shows that there is one open complaint against Respondent’s license.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
This matter lies within the Registrar’s jurisdiction. Ariz. Rev. Stat. section 32-1101 et seq.
Complainant bears the burden of proof to establish Respondent’s statutory violation by a preponderance of the evidence. See Ariz. Rev. Stat. section
41-1092.07(G)(2); A.A.C. R2-19-119(A) and A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1); see also Vazanno 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).
3. The suspended status of Respondent’s license does not
deprive Complainant of the right to prosecute the Complaint or prevent the Registrar from determining the merits of Complainant’s complaint. This matter lies within the Registrar’s jurisdiction.
3. The preponderance of the evidence shows that Respondent abandoned the contract, which is a violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. section 32-1154(A)(1).
3. The preponderance of the evidence shows that Respondent failed to perform the work in a professional and workmanlike manner, in violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. section 32-1154(A)(3), namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(A).
RECOMMENDed order
Based on the foregoing, it is recommended that on the effective date of the Order, the Registrar shall suspend License No. 307798 of Mariposa Painting, LLC for three days.
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 4, 2024.
/s/ Velva Moses-Thompson
Administrative Law Judge
Transmitted by either mail, e-mail, or facsimile to:
Tom Cole, Director
Registrar of Contractors
Sean K. Moynihan, Esq.
[email redacted]
Eric Larsen
[email redacted]
Mike Springer
[email redacted]
Mariposa Painting LLC
[email redacted]
By: OAH Staff