ALJDEC - Licensing
2024A-00979-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2024-09-04
IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
Amanda Reyes,
COMPLAINANT
v.
LHH/Amarillas Bros Construction LLC
DBA: Sky High Restoration and Remodeling
License No. ROC 323310,
RESPONDENT
No. 2024A-00979-CHC-ROC
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION
HEARING: August 15, 2024
APPEARANCES: Complainant Amanda Reyes appeared on her own behalf. Stephen Amarillas, Owner and Qualifying Party, appeared on behalf of Respondent LHH/Amarillas Bros Construction LLC doing business as Sky High Restoration and Remodeling.
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
LHH/Amarillas Bros Construction LLC doing business as Sky High Restoration and Remodeling (Respondent) is the holder of License No. 323310 issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (Registrar).
On or about April 13, 2021, Amanda Reyes (Complainant) entered into a contract for an addition to her home with Michael Bejarano, who was purportedly a manager/supervisor for Respondent. The contract did not include an estimated date of completion or a an advisement that Complainant could file a complaint with the Registrar.
The contract had “Amarillas Bros Construction & Electrical” listed as the company name with Mr. Bejarano’s name listed under that. It provided an address of 7044 S. Brickellbush Lane, Tucson, Az. 85756, and an email address of [email redacted].
The contract included under payment information that Paypal payments could be made to [email redacted]; check payments should be made out to “Michael Bejarano”; and Zelle or Cashapp payments could be made.
Complainant issued two checks to Mr. Bejarano personally in the amounts of $6,250.00 and $12,750.00.
According to the Registrar’s website, Respondent’s address was in Sierra Vista, Arizona. Further, Ms. Bejarano was not listed as an individual associated with the company or the license. Specifically, Mr. Bejarano was not identified as a Member, Manager, Owner, or Qualifying Party.
On or about January 24, 2024, the Registrar received a Complaint against Respondent from Complainant alleging abandonment and poor work with respect to the project.
The Registrar assigned the complaint to Investigator Michael Springer. After a jobsite inspection, Investigator Springer 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 April 30th, 2024.
. . . .
DIRECTIVE REQUIREMENTS
You are directed to remedy the following violations by the appropriate means:
Compliance Item: 1 - Electrical -water Instahot was installed for sinks, when used, all addition lights flicker, mentioned several times, not
Investigator’s Observation: Respondent states wiring is #12 and requires a #8 and is replacing.
. . . .
Compliance Item: 2 - MOLD - Shower installed and leak began (photos available), mold grew in walls, contractor refused to pay for mold test,
Investigator’s Observation: Shower pan has been replaced once already, continues to leak. Respondent states he is going to remove pan and tile up wall in order to find and correct leak.
. . . .
Compliance Item: 3 - Master Shower Door - when attempting to install, contractors dropped and shattered glass door
Investigator’s Observation: Master shower door has not been replaced.
Respondent asked complainant at JSI to go pick a door and he will order it.
. . . .
Compliance Item: 4 - Split unit install - leaks when rains and when running humidity gathers and pools water onto floor
Investigator’s Observation: Respondent states condensation line has a leak and he will correct.
. . . .
Compliance Item: 5 - Exterior Wall - contractors removed for addition, but did not replace/correct
Investigator’s Observation: Small section of block wall has not been replaced.
. . . .
Compliance Item: 6 - Interior Painting/Texturing not complete
Investigator’s Observation: Painting is not complete in Master bath.
. . . .
Compliance Item: 7 - Master Bathroom Door - never received/never installed
Investigator’s Observation: Master bath entry door not installed (Barn Door)
. . . .
Compliance Item: 8 - Master Closet Door - not to our request - loud and not installed properly
Investigator’s Observation: Pocket door is trimmed poorly.
. . . .
Compliance Item: 12 - Water Hot/Cold Valve - this was installed backwards
Investigator’s Observation: Water temps working in reverse,
Respondent states he will correct.
. . . .
Compliance Item: 15 - Roof-Replace peel and stick with torch down, Redo AC mount.
Investigator’s Observation: Respondent states that peel and stich underlayment was used. He will be removing and installing a torch down roof, addressing AC mounting concerns.
. . . .
Compliance Item: 16 - Shower had directly under light and loose.
Investigator’s Observation: Respondent states he will move the shower head and adjust.
Following the issuance of the written directive, Respondent, believing it was responsible to complete the work in the directive, attempted to perform said work. After the deadline in the directive expired, Investigator Springer 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(C); A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(12), namely A.R.S. § 32-1158; and A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22).
Investigator Springer testified that he was aware of an unlicensed contractor case involving Mr. Bejarano.
Complainant testified she had no conversations with Stephen Amarillas, Respondent’s Owner and Qualifying Party, prior to her filing the complaint with the Registrar. Complainant stated that Mr. Bejarano was a friend of her husband and she never thought something like this would happen.
Mr. Amarillas testified that he was completely unaware of the project until he received the complaint from the Registrar. Mr. Amarillas maintained that, other than Respondent’s license number on the contract, Complainant’s project had no connection to him. Mr. Amarillas stated that, when he received the written directive, he believed Respondent was required to address the items included. Mr. Amarillas acknowledged that he worked with Mr. Bejarano in 2018, but denied that Mr. Bejarano ever had any authority to enter into contracts on Respondent’s behalf.
Administrative notice is taken of Respondent’s prior License record on September 4, 2024. Such prior License record reflects that Respondent’s License No. 323310 was first issued on January 18, 2019, and is active. Such prior License record also reflects that there were no other open complaints, two prior resolved/settled complaints, and one prior complaint resulting in discipline 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 failed to establish that Respondent entered into a contract with Complainant. While Respondent’s license number was referenced on the contract, nothing else on the contract supported a conclusion that Respondent was involved in the contract. Mr. Bejarano’s name was not associated with Respondent’s license, as indicated by the Registrar’s website. Further Complainant made payments to Mr. Bejarano personally rather than to Respondent as a company.
Therefore, Complainant failed to establish that Respondent acted in violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(C).
The evidence established that the contract Complainant entered into was not with Respondent. Therefore, the evidence failed to establish that Respondent failed to comply with the Registrar’s statute in violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(12), namely A.R.S. § 32-1158(A).
The evidence failed to establish that Respondent had any responsibility to correct the work done by Mr. Bejarano. Therefore, Complainant failed to establish 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
It is recommended that on the effective date of the Registrar’s final order in this matter, the Registrar close Complainant’s complaint in Case No. 2024-00979 against Respondent’s License No. 323310.
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, September 4, 2024.
/s/ Tammy L. Eigenheer
Administrative Law Judge
Transmitted by either mail, e-mail, or facsimile to:
Tom Cole, Director
Registrar of Contractors
Amanda Reyes
[email redacted]
LHH/Amarillas Bros Construction LLC
DBA: Sky High Restoration and Remodeling
[email redacted]
Mike Springer
[email redacted]
By: OAH Staff