ALJDEC - Licensing
2023A-14258-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2024-04-02
IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
Dekel Saati,
COMPLAINANT
v.
Jose Angel Negrete
DBA: Green Tech Plumbing
License No. ROC 308399,
RESPONDENT
No. 2023A-14258-CHC-ROC
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION
HEARING: March 14, 2024
APPEARANCES: Complainant Dekel Saati appeared via Google Meet. Respondent Jose Angel Negrete appeared in person. Registrar of Contractors Investigator Mike Springer appeared via Google Meet. Lydia Solis appeared as a Spanish interpreter.
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Adam D. Stone
EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE:
_____________________________________________________________________
FINDINGS OF FACT
Jose Angel Negrete (Respondent) is the holder of License No. 308399 issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (Registrar).
On or about November 7, 2023, Dekel Saati (Complainant) agreed to have Respondent perform a sewer system restoration at commercial property in Bisbee, Arizona. The contracted amount was $32,794.53.
On or about December 15, 2023, the Registrar received a Complaint against Respondent from Complainant alleging poor work with respect to project.
The Registrar assigned the complaint to Investigator Mike Springer. The jobsite inspection was performed on December 18, 2023.
On January 4, 2024, the Registrar issued a Citation against Respondent, charging possible violations of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(1), A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(a), and A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(12), namely A.R.S. § 32-1158.
On or about January 15, 2024, Respondent e-mailed an Answer to the Registrar.
On or about January 30, 2024, a Notice of Hearing was issued setting a hearing on March 14, 2024 at the Office of Administrative Hearings, an independent state agency.
At hearing, Investigator Springer testified as to the Registrar’s involvement and the above timeline.
Investigator Springer testified that the jobsite inspection date was expedited due to the extreme nature of the property, as the jobsite was a “giant mess” as there were exposed pools of sewage and open trenches.
Further, Investigator Springer testified that no Written Directive was issued as Respondent informed him that he did not have the funds to complete the job or to repair any of the work.
Finally, Investigator Springer testified that Respondent’s contract was missing numbers 4 and 9 of the elements of a contract under the statute.
Dekel Saati testified on his own behalf. He testified generally that Investigator Springer did not even complete a fully inspection because the property was in such a bad state.
Complainant testified further that he had to re-do all of the trenches and had to start all over again with new permits, and as of two weeks ago, he finally had everything fixed.
Complainant also testified that he paid for some materials and rental equipment.
Jose Negrete testified on his own behalf. He testified that the entire sewer system was faulty, as there were clogs everywhere.
Further, Respondent acknowledged that there was never a written contract just estimates of how much things would cost as they went.
Respondent also testified that he had not worked in Bisbee, so he was unaware and unprepared for how rocky the soil was as he usually works in Yuma, Arizona. Because of this, Respondent stated that he kept requesting money but that Complainant started bring offensive, calling him a thief and a drug user.
Finally, Respondent testified that he should have made a signed contract for the project.
Administrative notice was taken of Respondent’s prior License record on April 2, 2024. Such prior License record reflected that Respondent’s License No. 308399 was first issued on September 2, 2016, and reflected that there was one open case, namely the present complaint.
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 preponderance of the evidence established that Respondent abandoned the project as there were open trenches and the work was not completed. Therefore, Complainant established that Respondent did not complete the project in a workmanlike manner in violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(1).
The preponderance of the evidence established that Respondent’s work was not in conformity with the Registrar’s standards. There were at least four open sewer pits, and low spots in roads. 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 Respondent’s contract failed to contain the estimated date of completion and the “right to file” language. Therefore, Complainant established that Respondent was in violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(12).
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. 308399 for a period of five days.
It is also recommended that the Respondent provide an updated sample contract to the Registrar within 30 days. Should Respondent fail to provide the same, it is recommended that Respondent’s license be suspended until the same is provided.
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, April 2, 2024.
/s/ Adam D. Stone
Administrative Law Judge
Transmitted by either mail, e-mail, or facsimile to:
Tom Cole, Director
Registrar of Contractors
Dekel Saati
[email redacted]
Jose Angel Negrete
[email redacted]
By: OAH Staff