ALJDEC - Licensing
2024A-00798-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2024-10-22
IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
Brian Lueck
COMPLAINANT,
v.
Integrity Steel Company LLC
DBA: Integrity Steel Co,
License No. ROC 336643,
RESPONDENT.
No. 2024A-00798-CHC-ROC
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION
HEARING: July 2, 2024 and October 2, 2024
APPEARANCES: Complainant Brian Lueck (Complainant) represented himself. No one appeared on behalf of Respondent Integrity Steel Company, LLC (Respondent).
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Velva Moses-Thompson
_____________________________________________________________________
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. On May 23, 2024, the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (Registrar) mailed a Notice of Hearing to Complainant and Respondent at their addresses of record, setting the above-matter for hearing on July 2, 2024 at 1:00 p.m. The Notice of Hearing provided, in relevant part, as follows:
................................
You must attend this hearing. This is an adversarial hearing before an administrative law judge, and is conducted in a similar manner as judicial proceedings. Thus, you must be prepared to present evidence, including witness testimony and documents, in support of your case.
................................
The complaint and citation allege that the Respondent committed the following act(s): Charge: A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(1) and A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22)
................................
Because Respondent is a licensee and is charged with an act(s) or omission(s) that is cause for the suspension or revocation of a license, Respondent is a party to this case and will be a party to the hearing. Because Complainant alleged Respondent committed an act(s) or omission(s) that is cause for the suspension or revocation of a license, Complainant is a party to this case and will be a party to the hearing. Respondent and Complainant, as the parties to the hearing, will present evidence and argument to the administrative law judge.
................................
2. Nick Lammers is Respondent’s qualifying party.
3. A hearing convened on July 2, 2024. Complainant and Mr. Lammers appeared at the hearing on July 2, 2024. The parties agreed to set the matter for a status update to afford the parties additional time to resolve the matter.
4. On July 30, 2024, Complainant requested that the matter be reset for hearing. Complainant’s request provided:
I am notifying the tribunal that the parties are unable to resolve their dispute and request that the matter be set for a second hearing. Nick has performed no work since the first hearing, which was 28 days ago. During the 7/2/2024 hearing, Nick told the tribunal he would have the building erected in 3 weeks. As of today July 30th 2024, he has still not provided a firm date on when the aforementioned work will start.
5. On August 6, 2024, the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) issued a notice resetting the hearing for October 2, 2024 at 1:00 p.m. through Google Meet. The Google Meet link was provided in the notice. The notice was sent by e-mail to all parties at their respective e-mail addresses of record with the Registrar.
6. A hearing was held on October 2, 2024.
7. At the hearing on October 2, 2024, Complainant testified on behalf of herself and Investigator Carter testified regarding his investigation of the complaint. 8. No one appeared on behalf of Respondent at the hearing on October 2, 2024. Although the hearing did not start until 1:16 p.m., no one appeared on behalf of Respondent through an authorized member, officer, employee, or attorney, or contact the OAH to request that the start of the hearing be further delayed. Consequently, Respondent did not present any evidence to defend its license.
9. On or about September 7, 2023, Complainant and Respondent entered into a contract wherein Respondent would install a detached steel building on Complainant’s property.
10. Complainant paid Respondent $56,393.20 for the installation.
11. On or about January 22, 2024, Complainant filed a complaint with the Registrar alleging abandonment on the part of Respondent.
12. On or about January 22, 2024, the Registrar assigned the complaint to one of its investigators, James Carter (hereinafter “Investigator Carter”).
13. On or about February 6, 2024, Investigator Carter conducted an initial job-site inspection. Investigator Carter discovered that Respondent had performed no work and there was no material on site.
14. On or about February 27, 2024, the Registrar issued a Directive to Respondent directing Respondent to remedy the following violation, by appropriate means, no later than February 27, 2024:
Compliance Item: 1 - Failed to perform any work whatsoever. Building was ordered from manufacturer, but no permit was ever submitted, no work Investigator’s Observation: Verified. At the time of the JSI Respondent has not begun any work. Respondent shall complete project per original contract agreement, properly executed change orders, verbal agreements, local building codes and manufacturers installation instructions. The Respondent will obtain a permit, correct any deficiencies required by the county and pass final permit inspection.
Governing Rule: ARS §32-1154 (A)(1) Abandonment of a contract or refusal to perform after submitting a bid on work without legal excuse for the abandonment or refusal.
15. On March 5, 2024, Investigator Carter conducted a job-site compliance inspection. Investigator Carter observed that Respondent performed no work and that no permit was submitted for construction. Investigator Carter noted in his compliance job-site notes that he had not received any requests for an extension of the deadline to comply with the Directive.
16. On July 29, 2024, the Registrar issued a Citation against Respondent’s license alleging that Respondent violated Ariz. Rev. Stat. §§ 32-1154(A)(1) and (22).
17. Respondent filed a timely answer to the Citation. In the answer, Respondent denied that it abandoned the project. Respondent explained that the building fabrication was scheduled to be delivered on April 3, 2024. Respondent also alleged that it submitted a permit on February 9, 2024 but it was canceled on April 7, 2024 without a warning. Respondent alleged that it had re-submitted the permit request to Maricopa County. Respondent’s answer also provided, “Multiple site visits have been performed to the property to shoot grade to estimate the amount of fill dirt needed to raise the pad above the irrigation level ect.”
18. The matter was referred to the Office of Administrative Hearings for an evidentiary hearing.
19. At the hearing on October 2, 2024, Investigator Carter testified consistently with his findings listed in the February 27, 2024 Directive.
20. Complainant explained at the hearing on October 2, 2024 that Respondent performed no work beyond delivering the steel building and completing the foundation. Respondent has not erected the building.
21. Administrative notice is taken of Respondent’s prior License record on
October 22, 2024. Such prior License record reflects that Respondent’s License No. 336643 was first issued on February 11, 2022 and is currently subject to a disciplinary suspension. Such prior License record also reflects there are currently five open complaints against Respondent’s license. Such prior License record further reflects that two complaints were closed due to a settlement or the withdrawal of the complaint by the filing party, after the issuance of a corrective order or a formal citation.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
This matter lies within the Registrar’s jurisdiction. See Ariz. Rev. Stat. sections 32-1101 et seq.
The suspended status of Respondent’s license does not deprive
Complainant of its right to prosecute its complaint against Respondent or prevent the Registrar from determining the merits of Complainant’s complaint. This dispute lies within the Registrar’s jurisdiction to resolve.
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).
4. The Administrative Law Judge may consider Registrar’s administrative
record. See Ariz. Admin. Code § R4-9-118.
5. The undisputed evidence presented at hearing shows that the steel building
was never erected. The weight of the evidence shows that Respondent abandoned the project, which is a violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(1).
6. The preponderance of the evidence shows that Respondent failed to comply with the Registrar’s Directive without valid justification, which is a violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 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 number 336643 for 10 days.
It is further recommended that the Registrar require Respondent to pay the sum of $500.00 as a civil penalty pursuant to Ariz. Rev. Stat. section 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 Ariz. Rev. Stat. sections 32-1101(A)(7), 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, October 22, 2024.
/s/ Velva Moses-Thompson
Administrative Law Judge
Transmitted by either mail, e-mail, or facsimile to:
Tom Cole, Director
Registrar of Contractors
Brian Lueck
[email redacted]
Integrity Steel Company LLC
DBA: Integrity Steel Co,
[email redacted]
By: OAH Staff