ALJDEC - Licensing
2023A-14113-NPC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2024-03-28
IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
Arizona Metro Mix LLC,
COMPLAINANT
v.
Pindernation Holdings LLC
DBA: Pindernation Electric
License No. ROC 300671,
RESPONDENT
No. 2023A-14113-NPC-ROC
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION
HEARING: March 23, 2024
APPEARANCES: Jennifer Ramirez, Credit Manager, appeared on behalf of Complainant; Michael Pinder, President, appeared on behalf of Respondent
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Roger Geddes
EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: None submitted
_____________________________________________________________________
FINDINGS OF FACT
Background and Procedure
1. Pindernation Holdings, LLC (Respondent), is the holder of License Number 300671 issued by the Registrar of Contractors (Registrar).
2. On or about December 11, 2023, Arizona Metro Mix, LLC (Complainant), filed a Complaint against Respondent with the Registrar alleging that Respondent owed Complainant the total amount of $1,536.38 for slurry materials provided to Respondent.
3. On December 20, 2023, the Registrar then issued a Citation for Alleged Violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(10) for the alleged failure by Respondent to pay monies in excess of $750.00 when due for materials or services rendered in connection with Respondent’s operations as a contractor. The Registrar referred the matter to the Office of Administrative Hearings, an independent state agency, for an evidentiary hearing.
4. The Registrar issued a Notice of Hearing that set a hearing for March 8, 2024, at 1:00 P.M. At the hearing, Complainant presented the testimony of Jennifer Ramirez, Credit Manager; Respondent presented the testimony of Michael Pinder, President. Neither party submitted exhibits to the Tribunal.
5 Jennifer Ramirez testified on behalf of Complainant, as herein relevant to the Citation, that Complainant delivered 11 yards of slurry to Respondent at a job site and has not been paid the amount of $1,536.38 for it. She stated she contacted the general contractor who told her that Respondent had been paid in full on the project.
6. Michael Pinder testified on behalf of Respondent, as herein relevant, that he did not dispute the amount in question. He stated he worked on the project for four months without receiving payment from the general contractor. He stated the general contractor owes him over $400,000.00, which he stated is the subject of another complaint with the Registrar. He testified that he had been paid approximately $200,000.00 on the job, some of which was paid by joint checks. He further testified that he is not doing other jobs at this point.
7. Pursuant to Arizona Administrative Code Rule 4-9-117, administrative notice is taken of the Registrar’s public website which reflects Respondent was first issued the subject license on September 17, 2015, which has now been in suspended status since October 2, 2023, due to non-renewal. The site also reflects two Open Cases, no Disciplined Cases, and one Resolved/Settled cases as of this date.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Registrar has jurisdiction over this matter, pursuant to A.R.S. § 32-1101, et seq., which authorizes the Registrar to impose disciplinary sanctions against licenses for violations of A.R.S. § 32-1154.
2. The burden of proof at an administrative hearing falls to the party asserting a claim, right, or entitlement and the standard of proof on all issues in these matters is by preponderance of the evidence. See Arizona Administrative Code Rule 2-19-119.
3. To warrant such sanctions by the Registrar, a Complainant must demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated the statutory section cited. Proof by a “preponderance” means that “the evidence is sufficient to persuade the finder of fact that the proposition is more likely true than not.” In re: Arnold and Baker Farms, 177 B.R. 648 (9th Cir. BAP (Ariz.) 1994). See also Culpepper v. State of Arizona, 187 Ariz. 431, 930 P.2d 508 (App. 1996). It is “evidence which is of greater weight or more convincing than the evidence which is offered in opposition to it; that is, evidence which as a whole shows that the fact sought to be proved is more probable than not.” BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY 1182 (Rev. 6th ed. 1990).
4. The suspended status of Respondent’s license does not deprive Complainant of the right to prosecute a complaint against Respondent or prevent the Registrar from determining the merits of Complainant’s complaint. See A.R.S. § 32-1154(C) (“The expiration, cancellation, suspension or revocation of a license . . . shall not deprive the registrar of jurisdiction to proceed with any investigation of or action or disciplinary proceeding against such license, or to render a decision suspending or revoking such a license . . .”).
5. A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(10) included among the grounds for suspension, revocation, or other disciplinary action against a contractor’s license:
[f]ailure by a licensee or agent or official of a licensee to pay monies in excess of $750 when due for materials or services rendered in connection with the licensee’s operations as a contractor unless the licensee proves that the licensee lacks the capacity to pay and has not received sufficient monies as payment for the particular construction work project or operation for which the services or materials were rendered or purchased.
6. A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(10). Complainant has satisfied its burden to demonstrate that Respondent has failed to pay Complainant the amount of $1,536.38 that had become due for materials or services rendered in connection with Respondent’s operations as a contractor. Respondent did not dispute that amount. However, while Respondent alluded to financial difficulties, there was no evidence presented substantiating any claim that Respondent lacked the capacity to pay or that Respondent had not received sufficient monies as payment for the particular construction work project or operation for which Complainant’s services or materials were rendered.
7. In this matter, Complainant has established that Respondent’s license should be disciplined for a violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(10).
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Based on the foregoing, it is recommended that within seven (7) days of the effective date of this order, Respondent’s License Number 300671 is suspended (or will remain suspended) until the Registrar receives and accepts written verification that Respondent has paid $1,536.38 to Complainant in certified funds.
It is further recommended that if and when the Registrar receives and accepts Respondent’s evidence that it has paid Complainant $1,536.38 in certified funds, the Registrar may close this Complaint.
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, March 28, 2024.
/s/ Roger Geddes
Administrative Law Judge
Transmitted electronically to:
Tom Cole, Director
Registrar of Contractors
c/o Legal Department
1700 W. Washington Street, Suite 105
Phoenix, AZ 85007
[email redacted]
Pindernation Holdings, LLC
DBA: PinderNation Plumbing
18420 W. Solano Dr.
Litchfield Park, AZ 85040
[email redacted]
Arizona Metro Mix, LLC
18477 S. 186th Way
Queen Creek, AZ 85142
[email redacted]
By: OAH Staff