2024A-01094-CHC-ROC Notice of Hearing & Packet MAILED 2024-01094

2024A-01094-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2024-05-15

REGISTRAR OF CONTRACTORS OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA

Nikhil Seth , Case No. 2024-01094

COMPLAINANT, Docket No. 2024A-01094-CHC-ROC

v. NOTICE OF HEARING ON CONTESTED CASE Mac Brothers LLC License No. ROC 274149,

RESPONDENT.

This Notice of Hearing is issued under A.R.S. § 41-1092.05(D). HEARING INFORMATION The hearing is set for:

June 20, 2024 9:00 AM Tammy Eigenheer Google Meet. A link will be provided directly from The Office of Administrative Hearings. Go to www.azoah.com to request to appear in-person.

If you have requested to appear in-person at the hearing, the hearing will be held at 1740 W Adams Street, Phoenix, AZ 85007.

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.

STATEMENT OF LEGAL AUTHORITY AND JURISDICTION The State of Arizona has determined that the licensing and regulation of construction contractors is a proper state function, and has vested authority in the Registrar of Contractors to administer Title 32, Chapter 10 of the Arizona Revised Statutes. A.R.S. §§ 32-1101 et seq. All hearings for alleged violations of Title 32, Chapter 10 are conducted under Title 41,

Chapter 6, Article 10. A.R.S. § 32-1156.

The statutes and rules governing the hearing can be found at: Arizona Revised

Statutes §§ 41-1092 to -1092.12, and Arizona Administrative Code R2-19-101 to -122.

PARTICULAR ARIZONA STATUTES AND RULES INVOLVED The statutes and rules the Respondent is alleged to have violated are cited in the

complaint and citation, which were served on the Respondent on April 18, 2024. SHORT AND PLAIN STATEMENT OF THE MATTERS ASSERTED The complaint and citation allege that the Respondent committed the following act(s): Charge: 1 A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) - R4-9-108(a)

Charge: 2 A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(12) - A.R.S. § 32-1158

Charge: 3 A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22)

THE PARTIES TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING 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.

The Registrar’s assigned investigator will appear as a witness at the hearing. RIGHT TO BE REPRESENTED The parties to the administrative hearing may choose to be represented by an attorney.

A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(B). If one of the parties is a company, the company may be represented

by an officer or employee if that person satisfies the conditions set forth in A.R.S. § 32-

1156(B).

CHANGE OF ADDRESS Each party must inform the Registrar and the Office of Administrative Hearings of any change of address within five (5) days of the change. A.R.S. § 41-1092.04.

HEARING PROCEDURES AND RULES The administrative hearing will be conducted in accordance with A.R.S. §§ 41-1092

to -1092.12, and A.A.C. R2-19-101 to -122. The parties should review the statutes, rules, and processes governing the administrative hearing. Copies of the statutes, rules, and articles regarding the administrative hearing process can be found at https://www.azoah.com/.

REGISTRAR’S APPEARANCE BY VIDEO CONFERENCE OR TELEPHONE

The Registrar’s investigators, employees, and attorneys will appear at the hearing via video conference or telephone unless requested by a party to appear in-person. Requests for the Registrar’s investigators, employees, or attorneys to appear in-person must be filed with the Registrar and the Office of Administrative Hearings no later than seven (7) calendar days prior to the hearing date.

HEARING PACKET

In the interests of administrative efficiency, the Registrar compiles and discloses

certain documents to the parties and the Office of Administrative Hearings. These documents are attached to this Notice of Hearing as the “Hearing Packet.” If any party wishes to submit additional evidence, they must do so during the hearing after completing a disclosure statement. See “Disclosure Statement” section below.

SUBPOENAS FOR TESTIMONY FROM A WITNESS OR DOCUMENTS

The parties to the hearing must be prepared to present evidence in support of their

case. If a party wants to obtain testimony from a witness or documents not in the party’s

possession, the party must prepare and file a written subpoena for the Administrative Law Judge to review and sign, if approved. A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(C). Forms for requesting a

subpoena can be found on the Office of Administrative Hearings’ website at www.azoah.com. The party seeking a subpoena must serve notice on all the parties to the hearing, and on the Registrar. A.R.S. § 41-1092.04.

DISCLOSURE STATEMENT

At least seven calendar days before the hearing, each party must prepare and serve a disclosure statement on all other parties, and file it with the Office of Administrative Hearings. A.A.C. R4-9-118; A.A.C. R2-19-108. The disclosure statement must include any exhibit the party will use at the hearing. A party’s failure to timely disclose any witness or exhibit, without good cause, may result in the administrative law judge excluding those witnesses or exhibits from being used at the hearing. A.A.C. R4-9-118(C). A sample disclosure form is available on the Registrar’s website at https://roc.az.gov/forms/RC-L-800A%20- %20Prehearing%20Disclosure%20Statement%2020191007v4.pdf

CHANGING THE HEARING DATE

The date of the hearing may only be advanced or delayed on the agreement of the

parties or on a showing of good cause. A.R.S. § 41-1092.05(C). The date of the hearing may

be changed by filing a written agreement of the parties to change the date of the hearing. The written agreement must be filed with the Office of Administrative Hearings, directed to the assigned Administrative Law Judge, and transmitted to the Registrar and all other parties. The assigned Administrative Law Judge may be found on the Office of Administrative Hearings’ web portal at www.azoah.com

If a party would like to move the date of the hearing without agreement of all parties, the party must file a written motion with the Office of Administrative Hearings, directed to the assigned Administrative Law Judge, and transmit a copy to the Registrar and all other parties. The motion must state in detail good cause for why the date of the hearing should be advanced or delayed, and the position of all other parties regarding the advancement or delay. A party may also file a motion asserting a right to an expedited hearing upon a showing of

extraordinary circumstances or the possibility of irreparable harm. A.R.S. § 41-1092.05(E).

RESOLUTION SHORT OF ADJUDICATION In any case which is resolved or settled by the parties, or which is withdrawn by the Complainant without objection from Respondent after the Notice of Hearing is issued, the parties must notify the Office of Administrative Hearings of the resolution or settlement. Any such cases will be listed on the Registrar’s website and its records under the category: “Closed

Complaints – Resolved/Settled/Withdrawn.”

Dated May 15, 2024.

By: /s/ Erika Hoskin Erika Hoskin Legal Secretary Legal Department Arizona Registrar of Contractors

Copy mailed via USPS First Class mail May 15, 2024 to:

Respondent(s) Mac Brothers LLC 8343 W Calle Lejos Peoria, AZ 85383

Complainant(s) Nikhil Seth 27372 N 90th Ln Peoria, AZ 85383

Copy sent electronically this same date to:

Respondent at email address on record with the Registrar Complainant at email address on record with the Registrar

Case No. 2024-01094 /

Katie Hobbs, Governor Martin Quezada, Director

Hearing Packet FAQ What is the Hearing Packet?

The Hearing Packet is a packet of certain documents collected or issued by the Registrar over the course of its investigation.

Who gets the Hearing Packet?

The Hearing Packet is assembled and distributed to all parties and to the Office of Administrative Hearings (“OAH”) prior to an administrative hearing.

What types of cases does the Registrar prepare a Hearing Packet for?

The Registrar prepares a Hearing Packet for Complainant-Handled Cases and No-Pay Cases. Note: If the Docket Number on the Notice of Hearing contains a “CHC” or “NPC”, your case is a Complainant-Handled Case or a No-Pay Case.

What is in the Hearing Packet?

The Hearing Packet contains essential case-specific documents and at a minimum will include the following documents:

● Original complaint;

1700 W. Washington Street, Suite 105 · Phoenix AZ 85007-2812 602.542.1525 · Within AZ 877.692.9762 · Fax 602.542.1599 · roc.az.gov Hearing Packet FAQ

Katie Hobbs, Governor Martin Quezada, Director

● Citation; and ● Answer.

The Hearing Packet will also contain the following documents (if applicable):

● Jobsite inspection notices, notes, and photos; ● Written directives; and ● Compliance inspection notices, notes, and photos.

What if there are documents missing from the Hearing Packet?

If there is any evidence you submitted to the Registrar that are not included in the Hearing Packet it is your responsibility to introduce that evidence at the administrative hearing. Note: The administrative law judge assigned to your case does not have access to the entire Registrar record.

If there is additional evidence you submitted to the Registrar during the investigation that you also want to introduce as evidence during your hearing, it is your responsibility to:

● Properly disclose that evidence to the other party; and ● Introduce the evidence during your hearing.

1700 W. Washington Street, Suite 105 · Phoenix AZ 85007-2812 602.542.1525 · Within AZ 877.692.9762 · Fax 602.542.1599 · roc.az.gov Hearing Packet FAQ

Katie Hobbs, Governor Martin Quezada, Director

How do I disclose evidence I intend to use at a Hearing?

You must properly disclose any and all documents and witnesses you intend to use at your hearing according to the Registrar’s Prehearing Disclosure Rules. See Arizona Administrative Code Section R4-9-118.

A sample prehearing disclosure form and instructions are provided to the parties by the Registrar.

How do I obtain documents I previously submitted to the Registrar?

If you previously submitted documents to the Registrar and need a copy of these documents, please contact the Registrar’s Legal Department or submit a public records request at https://roc.force.com/AZRoc/s/roc-public-request.

1700 W. Washington Street, Suite 105 · Phoenix AZ 85007-2812 602.542.1525 · Within AZ 877.692.9762 · Fax 602.542.1599 · roc.az.gov Hearing Packet FAQ

Complainant: Nikhil Seth 27372 N 90th Ln Peoria, AZ 85383

1700 W. Washington Street, Suite 105 · Phoenix AZ 85007-2812 602.542.1525 · Toll Free 877.692.9762 · roc.az.gov C008 05/21 Respondent: Mac Brothers LLC 8343 w calle lejos Peoria, AZ 85383

1700 W. Washington Street, Suite 105 · Phoenix AZ 85007-2812 602.542.1525 · Toll Free 877.692.9762 · roc.az.gov C008 05/21 January 29, 2024

Jobsite Inspection Notice Re: Complaint Number 2024-01094

Dear Complainant and Respondent:

A formal complaint has been filed with the Arizona Registrar of Contractors.

A jobsite inspection is scheduled for February 12, 2024 at 11:30 AM. The Complainant is required to be present. The Respondent’s attendance is requested and encouraged. The Registrar encourages both parties to make a good faith effort to resolve this complaint prior to the jobsite inspection.

COMPLAINANT: 1. Under A.R.S. § 32-1155(D)(1), the Respondent must be allowed, upon request, the opportunity to inspect the work complained of within fifteen (15) days of receiving this notice. If Respondent is not provided an opportunity to inspect the work within the fifteen (15) day time period, the Registrar may be prohibited from taking further action on this complaint. 2. The Registrar may also be precluded from taking further action on this complaint, if the work that is the subject of the complaint is subject to neglect, modification, or abnormal use. A.R.S. § 32-1155(D)(2) 3. You must provide safe access to any area to be inspected. If access to a roof or other elevated area is required, you must provide a means to safely access the area (ladder or manlift as appropriate). Additionally, please secure any animals.

RESPONDENT: 1. Enclosed is a copy of the complaint. Under A.R.S. § 32-1155(D) you must be allowed, upon request, the opportunity to inspect the work complained of within fifteen days of the date of receipt of this notice. 2. To assist the assigned investigator in evaluating the merits of the complaint, please submit a response to the enclosed complaint to the assigned investigator prior to the scheduled inspection. 3. If you do not attend the jobsite inspection, your absence may negatively impact the investigation, and your interests. 4. If a building permit(s) was required for this project, please have the building permit information available at the jobsite inspection. If either party needs to reschedule the jobsite inspection, please notify the assigned investigator at least three business days prior to the inspection date to schedule a new date and time. 1700 W. Washington Street, Suite 105 · Phoenix AZ 85007-2812 602.542.1525 · Toll Free 877.692.9762 · roc.az.gov C008 05/21 If the parties resolve the complaint prior to the inspection, please notify the assigned investigator in writing and by phone as soon as possible.

Sincerely, Daniel Edwards Daniel Edwards, Investigator #218 602 771 6788 [email redacted] 1700 W Washington St, Suite 105 Phoenix, Arizona 85007-2812

1700 W. Washington Street, Suite 105 · Phoenix AZ 85007-2812 602.542.1525 · Toll Free 877.692.9762 · roc.az.gov C008 05/21 A Guide to Jobsite Inspections

Purpose of the Jobsite Inspection When the Registrar receives a complaint against a contractor’s license alleging poor workmanship, the Registrar generally schedules a Jobsite Inspection. The Jobsite Inspection serves two purposes: 1. To give the contractor an opportunity to inspect the complaint items; and 2. To give the Registrar an opportunity to determine if the contractor’s work violates Arizona law.

Jobsite Inspection Rights and Responsibilities Access to inspect: The property owner has complete control over who they allow on the property. However, if the Registrar’s investigator or the contractor cannot inspect the work, the Registrar will not move forward with a citation.

Cooperation: Arizona law enables injured parties to seek relief for damages through several paths. When dealing with a licensed contractor, the Registrar of Contractors’ administrative complaint process may serve as one of those possible paths. However, in order to use that path, the Registrar relies on the cooperation of all parties to a complaint.

Minimum workmanship: The Registrar investigates workmanship complaints for compliance with minimum workmanship and professional industry standards. The Registrar does not issue citations for work that meets these standards.

Scope: The scope of the Jobsite Inspection is limited to items listed in the complaint filed with the Registrar’s office. It is the complainant’s responsibility to point out the complaint item(s) and the Investigators role to review the item(s). If the complainant identifies additional workmanship items not listed in the original complaint, they must file an addendum to the complaint. The Registrar’s Investigator may identify additional administrative violations by the contractor (e.g. work performed out of scope of the license and failure to provide a contract that meets requirements set by Arizona law) at the time of the inspection.

The Role of the Investigator At the Jobsite Inspection, the Registrar’s investigator will: ● Only investigate the items listed on the complaint form filed with the Registrar. ● Will gather evidence to make an informed decision about the complaint items.

What to expect after a Jobsite Inspection After doing a Jobsite Inspection, the Registrar’s Investigator will leave the jobsite and review the evidence provided during the inspection. Generally, the investigator does not make any determination at the time of the jobsite inspection regarding whether the allegations listed in the complaint are supported. ● If the allegations are confirmed, the Registrar’s Investigator may issue a Written Directive telling the contractor to correct the poor or incomplete work. ● If the allegations are not confirmed, the Registrar’s Investigator will close the complaint.

Questions? If you have already filed a complaint and it was assigned to an investigator, you are encouraged to contact that investigator directly with the information listed in your jobsite inspection letter. If you have not filed a complaint yet or have not been assigned an investigator, you can reach the Registrar’s compliance department at (877) 692-9762. 1700 W. Washington Street, Suite 105 · Phoenix AZ 85007-2812 602.542.1525 · Toll Free 877.692.9762 · roc.az.gov C008 05/21 A Guide to Written Directives Purpose of the Jobsite Inspection When the Registrar receives a complaint against a contractor’s license, the Registrar generally schedules a Jobsite Inspection. The Jobsite Inspection serves two purposes: 1. To give the contractor an opportunity to inspect the complaint items; and 2. To give the Registrar an opportunity to determine if the contractor’s work violates Arizona law.

What to expect after a Jobsite Inspection After doing a Jobsite Inspection, the Registrar’s Investigator will determine whether the allegations listed in the complaint are supported. ● If the allegations are confirmed, the Registrar’s Investigator may issue a Written Directive telling the contractor to correct the poor or incomplete work. ● If the allegations are not confirmed, the Registrar’s Investigator will close the complaint.

Written Directives Access: In order to use the administrative process offered by the Registrar, a property owner must provide reasonable access to allow the contractor to fix their work as directed by the Registrar in a Written Directive. Complainants may not put any additional, unnecessary restrictions on the Respondent above and beyond the initial contract requirements agreed upon at the beginning of the project. Respondents are required to make repairs on items identified on any Written Directive, not otherwise restricted by local code or HOA limitations. Complainants must make access available to the Respondent to make the required repairs and failure to provide reasonable access may result in the Registrar dismissing the complaint.

Contractor obligations: The Written Directive will set a deadline for compliance. This is the period of time determined by the Investigator as necessary to complete the items listed in the Directive. ● The deadline for compliance assumes the contractor will promptly begin working on the items listed in the Directive. ● Do not wait. Both parties should communicate quickly to schedule the work.

Extensions: If good cause exists to extend this deadline, either party may submit a written request to the Investigator. The Registrar will review requests for extension and determine if the Directive should be extended.

Manner and method of performance: The Registrar does not provide specific instructions for how to correct poor work. A licensed contractor is expected to have the skill and professionalism to complete the work. Moreover, the complainant may not dictate the manner of repair. If the contractor fails to appropriately correct the work according to the contract, the Registrar will issue a citation.

Compliance Inspection: After the Written Directive expires, the Registrar’s Investigator will contact the complainant to determine if the contractor performed any corrective work. ● If the contractor did corrective work, the Investigator may schedule a Compliance Inspection to determine if the poor work is corrected. ● If the contractor did not perform any corrective work, the Registrar’s Investigator will not do a Compliance Inspection and will determine whether to issue a citation based on the administrative record.

Work performed after the directive ends: After the Directive period ends, a property owner may choose to allow the contractor to continue its work. The Registrar encourages parties to work cooperatively, but cannot 1700 W. Washington Street, Suite 105 · Phoenix AZ 85007-2812 602.542.1525 · Toll Free 877.692.9762 · roc.az.gov C008 05/21 require a homeowner to continue to allow a contractor access to the property after the Directive period ends in order for the administrative process to continue. Denying access after the Directive ends is not grounds to close or dismiss a complaint.

1700 W. Washington Street, Suite 105 · Phoenix AZ 85007-2812 602.542.1525 · Toll Free 877.692.9762 · roc.az.gov C008 05/21 Licensed Complaint Form Departmental Use Only For Current or Suspended Licensees

Person Filing Complaint Full Name (First Middle Last) Business Name (if a licensed contractor or supplier) ROC License Number(s) (if any)

nikhil seth Mailing Address (Enter jobsite in Contract/Project section) City State Zip

27372 N 90th Ln Peoria Arizona 85383 Phone Number Email

[number redacted] [email redacted] I consent to receive communications electronically in connection with this case Name of Attorney (if any)

Street Address of Attorney City State Zip

Phone Number of Attorney Email of Attorney

Contractor Information Name (as shown on contract/invoice) ROC License Number(s)

Mac Brothers LLC ROC 274149 Street Address City State Zip

8343 w calle lejos Peoria AZ 85383 Phone Number Email

[number redacted] [email redacted] Name of Person(s) Representing License

Kevin Naughton Contract/Project Information Contract Date Contract Amount Amount Paid

January 25, 2023 $56,000.00 $52,900.68 Date Work Started Date Work Stopped Date Work Was Completed

February 1, 2023 December 31, 2023 Close of Escrow (New Home) Move-In Date (New-Home)

Jobsite Street Address City State Zip

8410 W Parkview Court Peoria AZ 85383 Name of Construction Site Owner Construction Site Name (if applicable)

Nikhil Seth Phone Number of Construction Site Owner Email of Construction Site Owner

[number redacted] [email redacted] This complaint is for Abandonment;Poor Work;Other I have contacted the contractor by Phone/Text Have you filed a complaint in court? No

RCC099 12/05/18 Page 1 of 2 Licensed Complaint Form Departmental Use Only For Current or Suspended Licensees

Has any work been corrected? No

The contract was Oral All change orders were N/A This project was Residential This project involved New Home

A building permit was obtained by Property Owner 2204293, 2204304 Peoria, Maricopa List and briefly describe each complaint item (Please do not write "see attached" or use additional pages unless necessary to further describe issues or list more complaint items) (limited to 100 characters per line)

There are multiple leaks in the roof contractor has sent a bill that is not as agreed to for final payment Contractor is asking for change request payments that were never agreed to or approved Contractor has filed mechanics lien

Signature I declare under penalty of perjury that the information and documents contained on this Complaint Form, included with this complaint, or hereafter submitted in support of this complaint are true and accurate to the best of my knowledge. I will assist in the investigation or in the prosecution of the contractor or other parties, and will, if necessary, attend hearings and testify to facts. Printed Name Signature Date

nikhil seth \complainant1\ \complainantd1\

RCC099 12/05/18 Page 2 of 2 • From the beginning the conversa8on centered around a full price which ini8ally was $50,000 and then raised to $56,000. Nowhere was any talk of this being a job where I am paying for material and he is geeng $18,000. Not only is his ﬁnal bill erroneous he has now introduced another line item saying the price for his labor actually is $22,150 but he is giving me a discount and only charging me $18,000 if I pay promptly.

Based on this he has ﬁled a mechanics lien against me for the full amount that he believes I owe him.

In addi8on, the key element is the job is not done. The following items are incomplete:

1. The roof has not been cleaned. It has patches of dust 2. The cement in the corners has not been painted 3. The vents on the roof have not been painted 4. There are three places where we s8ll have leaks and he has not ﬁxed them.

I believe he has ﬁled the lien to coerce and in8midate me. This is an invalid lien and ﬁled with malicious intent and he will have to pay me for damages and I believe minimum $ 5,000 for an erroneous lien. Case no. 2024-01094

Dan Edwards, 2/12/2024 1 8410 W Parkview Court JSI PHOTOS Case no. 2024-01094

Dan Edwards, 2/12/2024 2 8410 W Parkview Court JSI PHOTOS Case no. 2024-01094

Dan Edwards, 2/12/2024 3 8410 W Parkview Court JSI PHOTOS Case no. 2024-01094

Dan Edwards, 2/12/2024 4 8410 W Parkview Court JSI PHOTOS Case no. 2024-01094

Dan Edwards, 2/12/2024 5 8410 W Parkview Court JSI PHOTOS Complainant: nikhil seth 27372 N 90th Ln Peoria, AZ 85383

1700 W. Washington Street, Suite 105 · Phoenix AZ 85007-2812 602.542.1525 · Toll Free 877.692.9762 · roc.az.gov C007 12/23 Respondent: Mac Brothers LLC 8343 w calle lejos Peoria, AZ 85383

1700 W. Washington Street, Suite 105 · Phoenix AZ 85007-2812 602.542.1525 · Toll Free 877.692.9762 · roc.az.gov C007 12/23 February 13, 2024

Re: Complaint No. 2024-01094

Dear Complainant and Respondent:

After the initial filing of the complaint 2024-01094, the Complainant filed the attached amended complaint containing additional complaint items.

A jobsite inspection is scheduled for Wednesday, February 28 at 12:30PM. The Complainant is required to be present. The Respondent’s attendance is requested and encouraged. The Registrar encourages both parties to make a good faith effort to resolve this complaint prior to the jobsite inspection.

COMPLAINANT: 1. Under A.R.S. § 32-1155(D)(1), the Respondent must be allowed, upon request, the opportunity to inspect the amended complaint items within fifteen (15) days of receiving this notice. If Respondent is not provided an opportunity to inspect the work within the fifteen (15) day time period, the Registrar may be prohibited from taking further action on the amended complaint items. 2. The Registrar may also be precluded from taking further action on the amended complaint items, if the work that is the subject of the amended complaint is subject to neglect, modification, or abnormal use. A.R.S. § 32-1155(D)(2) 3. You must provide safe access to any area to be inspected. If access to a roof or other elevated area is required, you must provide a means to safely access the area. Additionally, please secure any animals.

RESPONDENT: 1. Enclosed is a copy of the amended complaint. Under A.R.S. § 32-1155(D) you must be allowed, upon request, the opportunity inspect the work complained of within fifteen days of the date of receipt of this notice. 2. To assist the assigned investigator in evaluating the merits of the amended complaint, please submit a response to the enclosed complaint to the assigned investigator prior to the scheduled inspection. 3. If you do not attend the jobsite inspection, your absence may negatively impact the investigation, and your interests. 4. If a building permit(s) was required for this project, please have the building permit information available at the jobsite inspection.

If either party needs to reschedule the jobsite inspection, please notify the assigned investigator at least three business days prior to the inspection date to schedule a new date and time. 1700 W. Washington Street, Suite 105 · Phoenix AZ 85007-2812 602.542.1525 · Toll Free 877.692.9762 · roc.az.gov C007 12/23 If the parties resolve the complaint prior to the inspection, please notify the assigned investigator in writing and by phone as soon as possible.

Sincerely,

Daniel Edwards Daniel Edwards, Investigator #218 602 771 6788 [email redacted] 1700 W Washington St, Suite 105 Phoenix, Arizona 85007-2812

1700 W. Washington Street, Suite 105 · Phoenix AZ 85007-2812 602.542.1525 · Toll Free 877.692.9762 · roc.az.gov C007 12/23 Daniel Edwards <[email redacted]>

Daniel Edwards has shared a file "20240129 Jobsite Inspection Notice 2024-01094.pdf" with you Nikhil Seth <[email redacted]> Tue, Feb 13, 2024 at 1 To: Daniel Edwards <[email redacted]>

Mr Edwards please find attached multiple other photos of the roof

I would like to amend my complaint as follows:

The flat roof has major issues beyond just the leaks. These have been pointed out by other contractors that have done an inspection. The major things pointed out but not exclusively are that foam has been applied poorly and is uneven leading to water retention on the roof. The drains are also sealed poorly creating impediment to flow. Roof does not have 1inch foam and appea left exposed before coating was applied which too appears to be inadequate.

I am enclosing some reports and estimate herein.

In addition to this the tile roof has similarly poor workmanship with valleys and flashing done improperly and not up to code and good workmanship. Deterioration in the cement applied on the corners has already started. The vents have also not been sealed properly.

These contractors and others are recommending substantial repairs before any of them will warranty the roof. Details of there deficiencies are in the reports.

As far as Mr. Naughton he has basically abandoned the job and left the roof exposed to the element and Both the roof and the drywall in the garage are deteriorating. His position that he has been paid is full of errors if need be I can elaborate on.

This link saying albums has multiple other photos besides those which I have attached. In order to view the album please scroll to the View album button and gently touch with cursor. A down arrow will appear. Please click on it and it will give you an option to open link which will take you to the album.

Right Way Roofing Inc. Mesa, AZ

A photo album has been shared with you! Troy Patinsky has shared a photo album.

Job Details: View Album Nikhil Seth 8410 West Park View Court Expires: 03/09/2024 Peoria, AZ 85383

Please let me know if you need any more information.

Thanks

Nikhil Seth [email redacted] 973-980-5452

On Jan 29, 2024, at 12:28 PM, Daniel Edwards <[email redacted]> wrote: Daniel Edwards <[email redacted]>

Daniel Edwards has shared a file "20240129 Jobsite Inspection Notice 2024-01094.pdf" with you Nikhil Seth <[email redacted]> Tue, Feb 13, 2024 at 1 To: Daniel Edwards <[email redacted]>

Mr Edwards please find attached multiple other photos of the roof

I would like to amend my complaint as follows:

I am enclosing some reports and estimate herein.

These contractors and others are recommending substantial repairs before any of them will warranty the roof. Details of there deficiencies are in the reports.

Right Way Roofing Inc. Mesa, AZ

A photo album has been shared with you! Troy Patinsky has shared a photo album.

Job Details: View Album Nikhil Seth 8410 West Park View Court Expires: 03/09/2024 Peoria, AZ 85383

Please let me know if you need any more information.

Thanks

Nikhil Seth [email redacted] 973-980-5452

On Jan 29, 2024, at 12:28 PM, Daniel Edwards <[email redacted]> wrote: [Quoted text hidden]

attachments Jim Brown and Sons Roofing Quote - Roof Inspection_Nikhil Seth_27372 North 90th Lane-1.pdf 3247K Sprayfoam Roofing.pdf 444K AZ FOAM MASTERS LLC 623-313-4613 | [email redacted] | ROC#322476

SPRAYFOAM ROOF PROPOSAL

Project Name: Nikhel Project address: 8410 W. Parkview Court, Peoria, AZ 85383 Date: 02/03/2024

SCOPE OF WORK:

1. Inspect decking for rotten and/or deteriorated wood. (Will be replaced at an additional cost) Any wood replacement, will be determined at time of tear off. 2. Tear off existing roofing system around scuppers clean deck, to accept urethane roofing system. 3. Install new Drip edge metal flashings, and T-top vents, Box vents as needed where applicable. 4. Remove air conditioners . Install roofing under units and re-set units. (Not applicable) 5. Perform proper tie-in to other roofing system. 6. Apply one coat of primer to help insured proper adhesion of new Roofing system. 7. Apply average 1 inch (2.8lb sprayed in place density) polyurethane foam to roof in a monolithic (seamless) method. Perform proper tie-in to other roofing system.

8. Apply 2 coats system of elastomeric coating at a rate of 1.5 gallons per 100 square feet per pass, yielding an average of 24 dry mils.

9. Color of elastomeric to be white. 10. Clean and detail premises, removing all job-related debris. 11. AZ Foam Masters LLC would provide a 5 year warranty on Flat roof.(Labor only) 12. Manufacturer’s warranty provides a 10 year warranty (material only) Description Quantity Unit price Cost Spray Foam roofing installation 1 3,181 sq ft $4.20 per sq ft $13,360.20 inch and 2 coats of elastomeric coating Tear off existing roofing system 1 layer 3,181 sq ft $1.25 per sq ft $3,976.25 of modified roofing. Tile Tie-in 190 Ln ft $15.00 per Ln ft $2,850.00

T-tops 2 units $45.00 per unit

Subtotal $20,186.45

Sales tax 8.000 % TOTAL $20,186.45

THIS BID IS ONLY GOOD FOR 10 DAYS DUE TO CONSTANTLY RISING MATERIAL COSTS PURCHASE PRICE AND CONDITIONS: AZ Foam Masters LLC. ( “Contractor”) HEREBY PROPOSES TO FURNISH ALL LABOR AND MATERIALS COMPLETE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ABOVE SPECIFICATIONS AND THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THIS CONTRACT FOR THE SUM OF $20,186.45 (50% WHEN MATERIALS ARE ORDERED AND 50% UPON COMPLETION). IF OWNER IS PAYING BY CREDIT CARD, A 3% FEE WILL BE ADDED. FINAL PAYMENT TO BE MADE AT COMPLETION OF CONTRACTOR ’S SERVICES UNDER THIS CONTRACT. A 15% LATE CHARGE ON THE BALANCE OWED CONTRACTOR WILL BE ADDED TO THE FINAL COST IF PAYMENT IS NOT RECEIVED BY CONTRACTOR WITHIN 10 DAYS AFTER COMPLETION OF CONTRACTOR’S SERVICES UNDER THE CONTRACT. INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 18% PER ANNUM SHALL ALSO ACCRUE ON ANY PAST DUE AMOUNTS UNTIL PAID. CONTRACTOR'S WARRANTIES DO NOT BEGIN UNTIL FINAL PAYMENT HAS BEEN

RECEIVED AND PROCESSED. IN ADDITION, THE WARRANTY PERIOD SHALL BE REDUCED BY EACH DAY FINAL PAYMENT UNDER THIS CONTRACT IS PAST DUE AND NOTWITHSTANDING ANYTHING TO THE CONTRARY HEREIN, THE WARRANTY UNDER THIS CONTRACT WILL BECOME VOID IF THE FINAL PAYMENT IS NOT RECEIVED BY CONTRACTOR WITHIN 45 DAYS AFTER THE COMPLETION OF THE JOB. CONTRACTOR IS AUTHORIZED TO DO THE WORK AS SPECIFIED HEREIN. CONTRACTOR TO COMPLY WITH ARIZONA CONTRACTORS LICENSE REGULATIONS. THIS ORDER SHALL BECOME BINDING UPON WRITTEN ACCEPTANCE BY CONTRACTOR. UPON SUCH ACCEPTANCE OF ORDER BY CONTRACTOR, IT THEREAFTER BECOMES A BINDING CONTRACT BETWEEN THE UNDERSIGNED OWNERS AND THE CONTRACTOR. CHANGES. IT IS MUTUALLY AGREED THAT SHOULD THERE BE ANY ALTERATIONS IN THE ABOVE SPECIFICATIONS, OWNER AGREES TO PAY CONTRACTOR ANY COST INCURRED BY SUCH CHANGE. TERMINATION. IT IS MUTUALLY AGREED THAT IN THE EVENT OF CANCELLATION OF THIS CONTRACT BY OWNER BEFORE CONTRACTOR’S WORK IS STARTED, OWNER SHALL PAY TO CONTRACTOR ON DEMAND 35% PERCENT OF THE CONTRACT AMOUNT AS ITS DAMAGES FOR SUCH TERMINATION BREACH. OWNER SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE FULL CONTRACT AMOUNT IF THE CONTRACT IS TERMINATED BY OWNER AFTER CONTRACTOR HAS STARTED THE JOB. COSTS AND ATTORNEYS’ FEES. IN THE EVENT (1) CONTRACTOR DEEMS IT NECESSARY TO FILE A MECHANICS LIEN TO SECURE PAYMENT OF THE MONIES DUE UNDER THIS CONTRACT, OR (2) IT BECOMES NECESSARY FOR CONTRACTOR TO FILE SUIT TO COLLECT ANY MONIES DUE FROM OWNER UNDER THIS CONTRACT, OR (3) IF OWNER BREACHES THIS CONTRACT, OWNER AGREES TO PAY ALL COSTS AND ATTORNEYS’ FEES INCURRED BY CONTRACTOR FOR FILING SUCH LIEN, BRINGING SUIT TO COLLECT ANY MONIES DUE HEREUNDER OR TO RECOVER DAMAGES FOR OWNER’S BREACH OF THIS CONTRACT. IN THE EVENT THAT A LIEN MUST BE FILED, A 4% ANNUAL FEE ACCRUES UNTIL IT IS PAID. ENTIRE CONTRACT. THE PARTIES ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THIS CONTRACT CONTAINS THE ENTIRE CONTRACT BETWEEN THE PARTIES, AND NO STATEMENTS, PROMISES OR INDUCEMENTS MADE BY EITHER PARTY OR AGENT OF EITHER PARTY THAT ARE NOT CONTAINED IN THIS WRITTEN CONTRACT SHALL BE VALID OR BINDING. THE CONTRACT MAY NOT BE ENLARGED, MODIFIED OR ALTERED, EXCEPT IN WRITING BY THE PARTIES TO THIS CONTRACT. WAIVER OF CONTRACTOR LIABILITY. OWNER WAIVES ALL BENEFITS OF ANY EXEMPTION AT LAW NOW OR HEREAFTER IN FORCE, TOGETHER WITH THE BENEFIT OF ALL STATUTES THAT MAY BE IN CONFLICT WITH THIS CONTRACT. CONTRACTOR WILL NOT BE LIABLE FOR DAMAGES TO ANY PART OF THE INTERIOR OF OWNER’S BUILDING/STRUCTURE OR ITS CONTENTS WHICH MAY ARISE FROM LEAKS OF ANY NATURE BEFORE THE ROOF HAS BEEN APPLIED. THIS CONTRACT DOES NOT INCLUDE REPAIRS TO GUTTERS, DOWN SPOUTS, PIPES OR METAL FLASHINGS UNLESS EXPRESSLY STIPULATED IN SPECIFICATIONS. CONTRACTOR IS NOT LIABLE FOR PONDING WATER ON FLAT ROOFS. IF THERE IS A SATELLITE DISH THAT MUST BE REMOVED IN ORDER TO ROOF THE HOUSE, HOMEOWNER IS

RESPONSIBLE FOR THE DISH COMPANY RE-SETTING THE DISH. CONTRACTOR IS ALSO NOT LIABLE/RESPONSIBLE FOR ANYTHING TO DO WITH ANYTHING SOLAR OR ANYTHING TO DO WITH ANY KIND OF SPRINKLER SYSTEM - WHETHER ON THE ROOF OR ON THE GROUND. HOMEOWNER MUST MAINTENANCE THE ROOF IN ORDER FOR WARRANTY TO BE VALID (KEEP FREE OF DEBRIS/RE-SEAL ROOF PENETRATIONS—IF HOMEOWNER IS UNABLE TO, WE CAN PROVIDE AN ESTIMATE TO DO IT). WE ARE NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY CRACKS/DAMAGE TO DRIVEWAYS. WARRANTY LIMITATION. FOR THE DURATION OF THE WARRANTY, CONTRACTOR IS THE ONLY ROOFING COMPANY AUTHO RIZED TO DO REPAIRS OF ANY KIND TO OWNER’S ROOF. IF ANOTHER ROOFING COMPANY PERFORMS REPAIRS OF ANY KIND TO OWNER’S ROOF WHILE UNDER WARRANTY, THE WARRANTY UNDER THIS CONTRACT WILL BECOME VOID. CONTRACTOR'S WARRANTIES ARE TRANSFERRABLE AS LONG AS NEW OWNER HAS ORIGINAL PAPERWORK. OWNER MUST NOTIFY CONTRACTOR IN WRITING OF ANY LEAKS OR OTHER DISCOVERED PROBLEMS WITH THE ROOF WITHIN 3 BUSINESS DAYS OF OWNER’S KNOWLEDGE OF ANY LEAKS OR OTHER PROBLEMS WITH THE ROOF. IF SUCH NOTICE IS NOT GIVEN, CONTRACTOR SHALL NOT BE LIABLE FOR ANY SUCH LEAKS OR PROBLEMS WITH THE ROOF AND ANY WARRANTIES HEREUNDER SHALL BECOME VOID. CONTRACTOR’S WARRANTIES DO NOT COVER ACTS OF GOD, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, STORMS OR OTHER ADVERSE WEATHER CONDITIONS, EARTHQUAKES, FIRES, INSURRECTION, RIOTS OR ANY OTHER CAUSE BEYOND THE CONTROL OF CONTRACTOR. If CONTRACTOR BREACHES THE WARRANTY UNDER THIS CONTRACT, OWNER’S SOLE AND EXCLUSIVE REMEDY IS TO REQUIRE CONTRACTOR TO RE-PERFORM THE NON- CONFORMING SERVICES. CONTRACTOR DISCLAIMS ALL OTHER WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED. OWNER ACKNOWLEDGMENT AND UNDERSTANDING. BY SIGNATURE BELOW OWNER ACKNOWLEDGES AND SIGNIFIES THAT OWNER HAS CAREFULLY READ THIS ENTIRE CONTRACT AND HAS HAD TIME TO CONSIDER THE TERMS AND FULLY UNDERSTANDS AND AGREES TO ALL SUCH PROVISIONS.

Date:02/03/24 Submitted By: Michael Lopez

Date: Signature:__________________________________

Inspection report

1. The existing roofing system has an average of ¼ of an inch. The minimum it should have is 1 inch of spray foam roofing. 2. It appears that the foam was left exposed for a longer period of 48 hours. The minimum time of (spray foam) material exposure to sun should be 48 hours. 3. Scuppers/drains aren’t seal properly. 4. It appears they only applied one light application of elastomeric coating. 5. There’s several low spots where water doesn’t have proper drainage. 6. Roof penetrations aren’t seal properly.

Over all it’s a Very poor quality of workmanship

ROOF INSPECTION NIKHIL SETH FEB 12, 2024 27372 North 90th Lane Peoria, AZ Registrar of Contractors Licenses 85383 061127•082024•318282 [email redacted] (973) 980-5452 INTRODUCTION

Hi Nikhil,

Thank you for the opportunity to quote on your roofing project. Jim Brown & Sons Roofing Co. Inc., (JBS Roofing for short) was started in 1982 by our current owner Ron Brown. He named the company after his father Jim Brown who taught Ron and his three brothers the roofing trade. Jim's motto was "If you are going to take the time to do something, take the time to do it right". This motto has been instilled upon all of us at JBS Roofing. Forty years later a lot of lessons have been learned about running a roofing company, installing different roofing systems, and how to build a team that carries out your ethics and commitment.

What you will get when choosing JBS Roofing is the peace of mind that we are experienced, knowledgeable and committed to our craft. That we employee skilled installers, competent employees' who are customer service focused. We follow state, city, and federal guidelines such as e-Verify, in addition we drug test ALL employees.

JBS Roofing is a proud member of the Arizona Roofing Contractors Association, Ron Brown is a former president and his daughter Valorie Brown-Miller is a current Board of Director. We are also proud members of Western States Roofing Contractors Association, National Women in Roofing, A+ Rated with the BBB and in good standing with the Arizona Registrar of Contractors.

Our mission statement is, "Leading the roofing industry with our commitment to ethics, customer service, quality installations, and fair pricing. We are committed to supporting and severing the roofing industry to continue its improvement. The combination of all of these efforts will have a positive impact on our customers, our community and our roofing industry."

Thank you for taking the time in reading this we appreciate your time and consideration in our family owned company!

Kind regards,

Mark Pedersen 602-571-7054 [email redacted] INSPECTION

Valley metal flashings are to short, either under the tile or not extended far enough to keep water on top of the tile.

Vent and pipe flashing looks to be the base flashing only. There should be an aluminum flashing over the top of the base flashing to keep water on top of the tile. No roof to wall metal was installed prior to the wall stucco install. Metal counter flashing would work much better for much longer than mortar. Mortar will crack and fall apart in time. No mortar has been installed at this time and water will run under the tile as it is now.

Plumbing pipe does not have the aluminum top flashing just a big glob of mortar.

Mortar balls look terrible and do not cover the area as it should. Some of the mud balls seem to be falling apart already. Foam roof locations are very uneven, blisters, peeling, foam around drains is too high. Lots of visible standing water.

Foam around the drain is too high. Causing ponding water. The foam to tile roof transitions appear to be short. The foam should run up the pitched roof 12' or more to keep water from leaking at the transition. The foam roof appears it maybe thin in several locations. REPORT Description

Tile Roof

The tile roofing portion should follow the Tile Roofing Institute Guide lines for installation. There are numerous things that should be addressed on the tile roofing and foam roofing. The roof as it is now would not make it very long with out failing.

Quote subtotal $0.00

Total $0.00 Case no. 2024-01094

Dan Edwards, 2/28/2024 (2nd inspection w/ addendum items) 1 8343 w Calle Lejos JSI PHOTOS

Foam roof, complainant has concerns with ponding Case no. 2024-01094

Dan Edwards, 2/28/2024 (2nd inspection w/ addendum items) 2 8343 w Calle Lejos JSI PHOTOS

Foam roof, complainant has concerns with ponding Case no. 2024-01094

Dan Edwards, 2/28/2024 (2nd inspection w/ addendum items) 3 8343 w Calle Lejos JSI PHOTOS

Roof drains, this drain appears may be leaking Case no. 2024-01094

Dan Edwards, 2/28/2024 (2nd inspection w/ addendum items) 4 8343 w Calle Lejos JSI PHOTOS

Stucco and weep screeds at parapet wall Case no. 2024-01094

Dan Edwards, 2/28/2024 (2nd inspection w/ addendum items) 5 8343 w Calle Lejos JSI PHOTOS Case no. 2024-01094

Dan Edwards, 2/28/2024 (2nd inspection w/ addendum items) 6 8343 w Calle Lejos JSI PHOTOS Case no. 2024-01094

Dan Edwards, 2/28/2024 (2nd inspection w/ addendum items) 7 8343 w Calle Lejos JSI PHOTOS Case no. 2024-01094

Dan Edwards, 2/28/2024 (2nd inspection w/ addendum items) 8 8343 w Calle Lejos JSI PHOTOS Case no. 2024-01094

Dan Edwards, 2/28/2024 (2nd inspection w/ addendum items) 9 8343 w Calle Lejos JSI PHOTOS

Exposed underlayment at sidewall flashing, foam coatings applied over the top Case no. 2024-01094

Dan Edwards, 2/28/2024 (2nd inspection w/ addendum items) 10 8343 w Calle Lejos JSI PHOTOS

Flashing and valley metal, northeast corner where the tile roof meets stucco walls Case no. 2024-01094

Dan Edwards, 2/28/2024 (2nd inspection w/ addendum items) 11 8343 w Calle Lejos JSI PHOTOS Case no. 2024-01094

Dan Edwards, 2/28/2024 (2nd inspection w/ addendum items) 12 8343 w Calle Lejos JSI PHOTOS Case no. 2024-01094

Dan Edwards, 2/28/2024 (2nd inspection w/ addendum items) 13 8343 w Calle Lejos JSI PHOTOS Case no. 2024-01094

Dan Edwards, 2/28/2024 (2nd inspection w/ addendum items) 14 8343 w Calle Lejos JSI PHOTOS

Tile to foam transition Case no. 2024-01094

Dan Edwards, 2/28/2024 (2nd inspection w/ addendum items) 15 8343 w Calle Lejos JSI PHOTOS

Underlayment (Tyvek 200) is not fastened per manufacturer specs, is wrinkled Case no. 2024-01094

Dan Edwards, 2/28/2024 (2nd inspection w/ addendum items) 16 8343 w Calle Lejos JSI PHOTOS

Not secured to roof

Pipe flashing is not flush with roof deck, exposed foam visible Case no. 2024-01094

Dan Edwards, 2/28/2024 (2nd inspection w/ addendum items) 17 8343 w Calle Lejos JSI PHOTOS

Another pipe flashing, not secured to roof surface Case no. 2024-01094

Dan Edwards, 2/28/2024 (2nd inspection w/ addendum items) 18 8343 w Calle Lejos JSI PHOTOS

Overexposed foam Case no. 2024-01094

Dan Edwards, 2/28/2024 (2nd inspection w/ addendum items) 19 8343 w Calle Lejos JSI PHOTOS

Overexposed foam, poor work Case no. 2024-01094

Dan Edwards, 2/28/2024 (2nd inspection w/ addendum items) 20 8343 w Calle Lejos JSI PHOTOS

Roof patch performed by respondent, after other contractors reportedly cut a hole in the roof Case no. 2024-01094

Dan Edwards, 2/28/2024 (2nd inspection w/ addendum items) 21 8343 w Calle Lejos JSI PHOTOS

T-top flashing at foam roof appears flashed with Tyvek and coated Case no. 2024-01094

Dan Edwards, 2/28/2024 (2nd inspection w/ addendum items) 22 8343 w Calle Lejos JSI PHOTOS

Tyvek is wrinkled Case no. 2024-01094

Dan Edwards, 2/28/2024 (2nd inspection w/ addendum items) 23 8343 w Calle Lejos JSI PHOTOS

Mud balls poor, appear to be deteriorating Case no. 2024-01094

Dan Edwards, 2/28/2024 (2nd inspection w/ addendum items) 24 8343 w Calle Lejos JSI PHOTOS

Mud balls poorly done, appear to be deteriorating Case no. 2024-01094

Dan Edwards, 2/28/2024 (2nd inspection w/ addendum items) 25 8343 w Calle Lejos JSI PHOTOS

T top appears to be flashed with mortar at the casita instead of metal Case no. 2024-01094

Dan Edwards, 2/28/2024 (2nd inspection w/ addendum items) 26 8343 w Calle Lejos JSI PHOTOS

Tyvek coated, wrinkled, not secured to roof deck at tile to foam transition Jobsite Inspection Notes

Case No.: 2024-01094 Investigator: Daniel Edwards Inspection Date: February 12, 2024 @ 11:30AM; February 28, 2024 @ 12:30PM

Complainant: nikhil seth Respondent: Mac Brothers LLC Not Present: Not Present:

Jobsite General Notes:

Two inspections were performed for this case.

First inspection – February 12, 2024 – Present were Nikhil Seth (complainant) and Kevin Naughton (member for respondent). Photos taken with Canon ELPH digital camera and/or state-issued Google Pixel cell phone camera. Audio recorded with Olympus DM-720 digital voice recorder. Labelled photos included in case attachments labelled "20240212 JSI Photos 2024-01094." Inspection was conducted to review complainant’s initial list of complaint allegations (compliance items 1 – 4). Due to the fact that a sufficient ladder was not available, the roof areas were unable to be inspected on this day. Complainant subsequently filed a list of addendum items (compliance items 5 – 10) and a second inspection was scheduled.

Second inspection – February 28, 2024 - Present were Nikhil Seth (complainant) and Kevin Naughton (member for respondent), and John Naughton (respondent’s son/employee). Photos taken with Canon ELPH digital camera and/or state-issued Google Pixel cell phone camera. Audio recorded with Olympus DM-720 digital voice recorder. Labelled photos included in case attachments labelled "20240228 JSI Photos 2024-01094."

Compliance Item: 1 - There are multiple leaks in the roof Investigator’s Observation: Substantiated, multiple area showed signs of leaks and water damage (garage ceiling and two areas at the back patio ceiling; one area at the roof drain connections and another area adjacent to the wall at the southeast corner of the patio area). Respondent shall ensure roof is

1700 W. Washington Street, Suite 105 · Phoenix AZ 85007-2812 602.542.1525 · Toll Free 877.692.9762 · roc.az.gov C011 12/23

free of leaks and address water damage by appropriate means. Governing Rule: Violation of any rule adopted by the Registrar; Namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(a): A contractor shall perform all work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

Compliance Item: 7 - Roof does not have 1inch foam and appears was left exposed before coating was applied which too appears to be inadequate Investigator’s Observation: Unable to substantiate allegation in regards to foam thickness, overall thickness is currently unknown and unable to be demonstrated.

Regarding overexposed foam, various areas appear to have been exposed in excess of 48 hours and the foam is dark orange in appearance. Many foam areas lack any coatings. Respondent shall correct overexposed foam by appropriate means Governing Rule: Violation of any rule adopted by the Registrar; Namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(a): A contractor shall perform all work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

Compliance Item: 8 - tile roof has similarly poor workmanship with valleys and flashing done improperly and not up to code and good workmanship Investigator’s Observation: Tyvek 200 underlayment is exposed in multiple areas, and the underlayment does not appear to be fastened appropriately; underlayment has a printed pattern which identifies the locations of required fasteners and underlayment appears to be lacking fasteners in multiple locations. Underlayment is wavy and does not appear to be secured at the deck perimeter; per manufacturer's installation requirements, "Apply Tyvek® Protec™ taut and wrinkle-free. Do not stretch."

Flashings at the sidewalls (where the tile roof meets vertical stucco walls) appear poorly installed and have been cemented with tar in an attempt to seal the areas.

1700 W. Washington Street, Suite 105 · Phoenix AZ 85007-2812 602.542.1525 · Toll Free 877.692.9762 · roc.az.gov C011 12/23

Allegations regarding building code compliance would need to be addressed with the authority having jurisdiction over building code (City of Peoria).

Respondent shall address the issues outlined above by appropriate means. Governing Rule: Violation of any rule adopted by the Registrar; Namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(a): A contractor shall perform all work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

Compliance Item: 9 - Deterioration in the cement applied on the corners has already started Investigator’s Observation: Mud balls at roof ridges appear to be poor in overall appearance and many appear to be crumbling as of inspection date. Per standards, "Mortar should be neat and reasonably uniform in color." Respondent shall correct by appropriate means. Governing Rule: Violation of any rule adopted by the Registrar; Namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(a): A contractor shall perform all work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

Compliance Item: 10 - The vents have also not been sealed properly. Investigator’s Observation: Many vent base flashings are not secured to the roof deck and are floating above the roof surface. Overexposed roof foam is visible beneath these flashings. Tile penetrations appear to lack any tile flashing or storm collars and mortar has been applied to the penetrations instead. T-top flashings at foam roof appear flashed with wrinkled Tyvek and coated, and this does not appear to be an approved use of the Tyvek material. Mortar appears to have been used in lieu of proper metal flashing in various areas throughout the installation.

Per ROC standards,

“Possible Deficiency: Vents not flashed or improperly flashed.

1700 W. Washington Street, Suite 105 · Phoenix AZ 85007-2812 602.542.1525 · Toll Free 877.692.9762 · roc.az.gov C011 12/23

Acceptable Tolerance: Unapproved, missing or improperly installed roof jacks are unacceptable. Contractor’s Responsibility: Contractor should make necessary repairs.”

“Possible Deficiency: Improper or inadequate flashing. Acceptable Tolerance: Flashings should be installed according to manufacturer's recommendations and should be an approved type. Contractor’s Responsibility: Contractor should make necessary repairs.”

Respondent shall ensure all penetrations are flashed as appropriate and all materials are installed per manufacturer specifications by appropriate means. Governing Rule: Violation of any rule adopted by the Registrar; Namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(a): A contractor shall perform all work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

ITEMS NOT REQUIRING CORRECTION:

Compliance Item: 2 - contractor has sent a bill that is not as agreed to for final payment Investigator’s Observation: Allegation references a financial dispute outside of the Registrar's jurisdiction. Governing Rule: N/A

Compliance Item: 3 - Contractor is asking for change request payments that were never agreed to or approved Investigator’s Observation: Allegation references a financial dispute outside of the Registrar's jurisdiction. Governing Rule: N/A

Compliance Item: 4 - Contractor has filed mechanics lien Investigator’s Observation: Allegation references a financial dispute outside of the Registrar's jurisdiction. Governing Rule: N/A

1700 W. Washington Street, Suite 105 · Phoenix AZ 85007-2812 602.542.1525 · Toll Free 877.692.9762 · roc.az.gov C011 12/23

Compliance Item: 5 - foam has been applied poorly and is uneven leading to water retention on the roof Investigator’s Observation: Per standards for foam roofs:

"Possible Deficiency: Ponding. Acceptable Tolerance: Minor ponding (up to 1/2" deep in small areas equivalent to no more than 1/3 of span) is acceptable providing roof is dry within 48 hours after rainfall. Verifiable documentation that the potential problem was first submitted to the responsible party may relieve the roofer of responsibility. Contractor’s Responsbility: Contractor should make necessary repairs to insure proper drainage. "

At this time, there is insufficient evidence to verify that any portions of the foam roof retain water after 48 hours or are otherwise outside of allowable tolerances. Governing Rule: N/A

Compliance Item: 6 - The drains are also sealed poorly creating impediment to flow Investigator’s Observation: Complainant has concerns about leaks at drains which are addressed in compliance item no. 1. Governing Rule: N/A

Daniel Edwards Daniel Edwards, Investigator #218 602 771 6788 [email redacted] 1700 W Washington St, Suite 105 Phoenix, Arizona 85007-2812

1700 W. Washington Street, Suite 105 · Phoenix AZ 85007-2812 602.542.1525 · Toll Free 877.692.9762 · roc.az.gov C011 12/23

Complainant: nikhil seth 27372 N 90th Ln Peoria, AZ 85383

1700 W. Washington Street, Suite 105 · Phoenix AZ 85007-2812 602.542.1525 · Toll Free 877.692.9762 · roc.az.gov C009 12/23 Respondent: Mac Brothers LLC 8343 w calle lejos Peoria, AZ 85383

1700 W. Washington Street, Suite 105 · Phoenix AZ 85007-2812 602.542.1525 · Toll Free 877.692.9762 · roc.az.gov C009 12/23 March 15, 2024

License No. ROC 274149

Re:Complaint No. 2024-01094

WRITTEN DIRECTIVE FROM THE REGISTRAR

Dear Respondent:

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 5, 2024.

RESTRICTIONS • You may not perform or hire other contractors to perform work that is outside the scope of your license. • If your license is currently suspended for administrative reasons 1, or is inactive, expired, or cancelled, you may not perform any corrective work nor contract in any manner, which includes hiring other contractors to perform work, until the suspension of your license(s) has been lifted or your license(s) has been reactivated.

DIRECTIVE REQUIREMENTS You are directed to remedy the following violations by the appropriate means:

Compliance Item: 1 - There are multiple leaks in the roof Investigator’s Observation: Substantiated, multiple area showed signs of leaks and water damage (garage ceiling and two areas at the back patio ceiling; one located at the roof drain connections and another adjacent to the wall at the southeast corner of the patio area). Respondent shall ensure roof is free of leaks and address water damage by appropriate means. Governing Rule: Violation of any rule adopted by the Registrar;

This means the license is suspended for lack of qualifying party, lack of bond, nonrenewal, Recovery Fund payout, or for any reason listed in A.R.S. § 32-1124(F).

1700 W. Washington Street, Suite 105 · Phoenix AZ 85007-2812 602.542.1525 · Toll Free 877.692.9762 · roc.az.gov C009 12/23 Namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(a): A contractor shall perform all work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

Regarding overexposed foam, various areas appear to have been exposed in excess of 48 hours and the foam is dark orange in appearance. Many foam areas lack any coatings. Respondent shall correct overexposed foam by appropriate means Governing Rule: Violation of any rule adopted by the Registrar; Namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(a): A contractor shall perform all work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

1700 W. Washington Street, Suite 105 · Phoenix AZ 85007-2812 602.542.1525 · Toll Free 877.692.9762 · roc.az.gov C009 12/23 Flashings at the sidewalls (where the tile roof meets vertical stucco walls) appear poorly installed and have been cemented with tar in an attempt to seal the areas.

Allegations regarding building code compliance would need to be addressed with the authority having jurisdiction over building code (City of Peoria).

Respondent shall address the issues noted above by appropriate means. Governing Rule: Violation of any rule adopted by the Registrar; Namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(a): A contractor shall perform all work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

1700 W. Washington Street, Suite 105 · Phoenix AZ 85007-2812 602.542.1525 · Toll Free 877.692.9762 · roc.az.gov C009 12/23 Mortar appears to have been used in lieu of proper metal flashing in various areas throughout the installation.

Per ROC standards,

“Possible Deficiency: Vents not flashed or improperly flashed. Acceptable Tolerance: Unapproved, missing or improperly installed roof jacks are unacceptable. Contractor’s Responsibility: Contractor should make necessary repairs.”

ITEMS NOT REQUIRING CORRECTION The following complaint items require no action by the Respondent:

1700 W. Washington Street, Suite 105 · Phoenix AZ 85007-2812 602.542.1525 · Toll Free 877.692.9762 · roc.az.gov C009 12/23 Compliance Item: 3 - Contractor is asking for change request payments that were never agreed to or approved Investigator’s Observation: Allegation references a financial dispute outside of the Registrar's jurisdiction. Governing Rule: N/A

Compliance Item: 4 - Contractor has filed mechanics lien Investigator’s Observation: Allegation references a financial dispute outside of the Registrar's jurisdiction. Governing Rule: N/A

Compliance Item: 5 - foam has been applied poorly and is uneven leading to water retention on the roof Investigator’s Observation: Per standards for foam roofs:

"Possible Deficiency: Ponding. Acceptable Tolerance: Minor ponding (up to 1/2" deep in small areas equivalent to no more than 1/3 of span) is acceptable providing roof is dry within 48 hours after rainfall. Verifiable documentation that the potential problem was first submitted to the responsible party may relieve the roofer of responsibility. Contractor’s Responsibility: Contractor should make necessary repairs to insure proper drainage. "

At this time, there is insufficient evidence to verify that any portions of the foam roof retain water after 48 hours or are otherwise outside of allowable tolerances. Governing Rule: N/A

1700 W. Washington Street, Suite 105 · Phoenix AZ 85007-2812 602.542.1525 · Toll Free 877.692.9762 · roc.az.gov C009 12/23 Compliance Item: 6 - The drains are also sealed poorly creating impediment to flow Investigator’s Observation: Complainant has concerns about leaks at drains which are addressed in compliance item no. 1. Governing Rule: N/A

Please direct all questions regarding this Directive to the undersigned Investigator.

Sincerely,

Daniel Edwards Daniel Edwards, Investigator #218 602 771 6788 [email redacted] 1700 W Washington St, Suite 105 Phoenix, Arizona 85007-2812

1700 W. Washington Street, Suite 105 · Phoenix AZ 85007-2812 602.542.1525 · Toll Free 877.692.9762 · roc.az.gov C009 12/23 Complainant: nikhil seth 27372 N 90th Ln Peoria, AZ 85383

1700 W. Washington Street, Suite 105 · Phoenix AZ 85007-2812 602.542.1525 · Toll Free 877.692.9762 · roc.az.gov

C012 12/23 Respondent: Mac Brothers LLC 8343 w calle lejos Peoria, AZ 85383

1700 W. Washington Street, Suite 105 · Phoenix AZ 85007-2812 602.542.1525 · Toll Free 877.692.9762 · roc.az.gov

C012 12/23 April 9, 2024

Compliance Jobsite Inspection Notice Re: Complaint No. 2024-01094

Dear Complainant and Respondent:

A Compliance Inspection has been scheduled for Thursday, April 11, 2024 at 9:00 AM to determine the current status of the items listed on the issued Directive.

The Complainant is required to be present for this inspection. The Respondent is encouraged to be present but is not required to attend.

Complainant: SAFE ACCESS IS REQUIRED TO ANY AREA TO BE INSPECTED.

Sincerely,

Daniel Edwards Daniel Edwards, Investigator #218 602 771 6788 [email redacted] 1700 W Washington St, Suite 105 Phoenix, Arizona 85007-2812

1700 W. Washington Street, Suite 105 · Phoenix AZ 85007-2812 602.542.1525 · Toll Free 877.692.9762 · roc.az.gov

C012 12/23 Case no. 2024-01094

Dan Edwards, 4/11/2024 CP 1 8410 W Parkview Court CJSI PHOTOS

Hole cut into garage ceiling in the course of the parties attempting to diagnose the cause of the leak, parties dispute whether it is due to drain plumbing vs. a roof issue. Some water testing was performed during the directive timeframe, the parties are reporting conflicting observations (i.e. whether leak was coming from the drain elbow or through the drain catch basins at the roof surface). Drywall still at issue Case no. 2024-01094

Dan Edwards, 4/11/2024 CP 2 8410 W Parkview Court CJSI PHOTOS

Hole cut into the southeast corner of the back patio ceiling in an attempt to diagnose leak issue, drywall repairs still incomplete Case no. 2024-01094

Dan Edwards, 4/11/2024 CP 3 8410 W Parkview Court CJSI PHOTOS

Drywall repairs at the west wall of the master bedroom have been corrected by others Case no. 2024-01094

Dan Edwards, 4/11/2024 CP 4 8410 W Parkview Court CJSI PHOTOS

Various areas around the roof still have overexposed foam Case no. 2024-01094

Dan Edwards, 4/11/2024 CP 5 8410 W Parkview Court CJSI PHOTOS

Various areas around the roof still have overexposed foam Case no. 2024-01094

Dan Edwards, 4/11/2024 CP 6 8410 W Parkview Court CJSI PHOTOS

Various areas around the roof still have overexposed foam Case no. 2024-01094

Dan Edwards, 4/11/2024 CP 7 8410 W Parkview Court CJSI PHOTOS

Roofing at the southeast corner of the back patio roof has been removed, work incomplete. Underlayment does not conform to manufacture specs, wrinkled and is not taught. Does not appear the fastener schedule was followed. Case no. 2024-01094

Dan Edwards, 4/11/2024 CP 8 8410 W Parkview Court CJSI PHOTOS

Dan Edwards, 4/11/2024 CP 9 8410 W Parkview Court CJSI PHOTOS

Tile appears to have been removed to address flashing issues, work incomplete Case no. 2024-01094

Dan Edwards, 4/11/2024 CP 10 8410 W Parkview Court CJSI PHOTOS

Appears shingles were added in an attempt to address roof leak Case no. 2024-01094

Dan Edwards, 4/11/2024 CP 11 8410 W Parkview Court CJSI PHOTOS Case no. 2024-01094

Dan Edwards, 4/11/2024 CP 12 8410 W Parkview Court CJSI PHOTOS

Roof jacks still not secured to roof surface, floating above the deck, exposed foam still visible Case no. 2024-01094

Dan Edwards, 4/11/2024 CP 13 8410 W Parkview Court CJSI PHOTOS

Same area seen in photo no. 12 Case no. 2024-01094

Dan Edwards, 4/11/2024 CP 14 8410 W Parkview Court CJSI PHOTOS

Loose underlayment and exposed foam at the tile roof/foam transition west of the back patio parapet wall Case no. 2024-01094

Dan Edwards, 4/11/2024 CP 15 8410 W Parkview Court CJSI PHOTOS

Appears that other contractors have been brought in to test/address issues with foam (not in the directive), work modified Case no. 2024-01094

Dan Edwards, 4/11/2024 CP 16 8410 W Parkview Court CJSI PHOTOS

Appears that other contractors have been brought in to test/address issues with foam (not in the directive), work modified Case no. 2024-01094

Dan Edwards, 4/11/2024 CP 17 8410 W Parkview Court CJSI PHOTOS

Mud balls are still poor in appearance Case no. 2024-01094

Dan Edwards, 4/11/2024 CP 18 8410 W Parkview Court CJSI PHOTOS

Mud balls are still poor in appearance Case no. 2024-01094

Dan Edwards, 4/11/2024 CP 19 8410 W Parkview Court CJSI PHOTOS

Appears mud balls have been stained, but overall condition has not been improved Complainant: Nikhil Seth 27372 N 90th Ln Peoria, AZ 85383

1700 W. Washington Street, Suite 105 · Phoenix AZ 85007-2812 602.542.1525 · Toll Free 877.692.9762 · roc.az.gov C013 12/23 Respondent: Mac Brothers LLC 8343 w calle lejos Peoria, AZ 85383

1700 W. Washington Street, Suite 105 · Phoenix AZ 85007-2812 602.542.1525 · Toll Free 877.692.9762 · roc.az.gov C013 12/23 Case No.: 2024-01094 Investigator: Daniel Edwards Inspection Date: April 11, 2024 Inspection Time: 9:00 AM

Compliance Jobsite General Notes:

Present for inspection was Nikhil Seth, complainant. No representatives for respondent appeared during the inspection. Photos taken with Canon ELPH digital camera and/or state-issued Google Pixel cell phone camera. Audio recorded with Olympus DM-720 digital voice recorder. Labelled photos included in case attachments labelled "20240411 CJSI Photos 2024-01094."

Compliance Findings:

Compliance Item: 1 - There are multiple leaks in the roof Investigator’s Observation (Initial Inspection): Substantiated, multiple area showed signs of leaks and water damage (garage ceiling and two areas at the back patio ceiling; one located at the roof drain connections and another adjacent to the wall at the southeast corner of the patio area). Respondent shall ensure roof is free of leaks and address water damage by appropriate means. Investigator’s Observation (Compliance Inspection): The parties began opening up the ceilings in the garage and back patio in order to diagnose the cause of the leaks. The parties disagree whether the leaks were found to be caused due to roof drain piping (installed by others) vs. leaks around the drain collars on the roof surface. The testing occurred during the directive timeframe and was not observed first-hand by the ROC. Neither cause was able to be demonstrated during the compliance inspection. There are still drywall repairs which need to be addressed at the garage ceiling and back patio roof; drywall issues in the west bedroom and north side of the back patio ceiling have been completed by other contractors and these areas have been modified. Unable to verify whether any roof leaks caused by respondent remain. Drywall repairs at the southeast corner of the back patio ceiling and garage ceiling are still unresolved. Governing Rule: Violation of any rule adopted by the Registrar; Namely

1700 W. Washington Street, Suite 105 · Phoenix AZ 85007-2812 602.542.1525 · Toll Free 877.692.9762 · roc.az.gov C013 12/23 A.A.C. R4-9-108(a): A contractor shall perform all work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

Compliance Item: 7 - Roof does not have 1inch foam and appears was left exposed before coating was applied which too appears to be inadequate Investigator’s Observation (Initial Inspection): Unable to substantiate allegation in regards to foam thickness, overall thickness is currently unknown and unable to be demonstrated.

Regarding overexposed foam, various areas appear to have been exposed in excess of 48 hours and the foam is dark orange in appearance. Many foam areas lack any coatings. Respondent shall correct overexposed foam by appropriate means Investigator’s Observation (Compliance Inspection): Overexposed foam is still visible in numerous areas at the back patio roof parapet walls and beneath base flashings. Issue remains unresolved. Governing Rule: Violation of any rule adopted by the Registrar; Namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(a): A contractor shall perform all work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

Compliance Item: 8 - tile roof has similarly poor workmanship with valleys and flashing done improperly and not up to code and good workmanship Investigator’s Observation (Initial Inspection): Tyvek 200 underlayment is exposed in multiple areas, and the underlayment does not appear to be fastened appropriately; underlayment has a printed pattern which identifies the locations of required fasteners and underlayment appears to be lacking fasteners in multiple locations. Underlayment is wavy and does not appear to be secured at the deck perimeter; per manufacturer's installation requirements, "Apply Tyvek® Protec™ taut and wrinkle-free. Do not stretch."

1700 W. Washington Street, Suite 105 · Phoenix AZ 85007-2812 602.542.1525 · Toll Free 877.692.9762 · roc.az.gov C013 12/23 Flashings at the sidewalls (where the tile roof meets vertical stucco walls) appear poorly installed and have been cemented with tar in an attempt to seal the areas.

Allegations regarding building code compliance would need to be addressed with the authority having jurisdiction over building code (City of Peoria).

Respondent shall address the issues noted above by appropriate means. Investigator’s Observation (Compliance Inspection): Tyvek underlayment is still exposed at the southeast corner of the back patio roof, where it appears respondent began removing tiles to address the leak. The roof has been left exposed and tiles were not reinstalled. The exposed underlayment is excessively wrinkled and does not appear to have been fastened per the manufacturer’s requirements. Underlayment at the tile/foam transition west of the back patio parapet wall is also loose and wrinkled. It appears respondent had started taking steps to address the flashings at the vertical wall transition (southeast corner of the back patio roof) but the work is incomplete. Issue remains unresolved. Governing Rule: Violation of any rule adopted by the Registrar; Namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(a): A contractor shall perform all work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

Compliance Item: 9 - Deterioration in the cement applied on the corners has already started Investigator’s Observation (Initial Inspection): Mud balls at roof ridges appear to be poor in overall appearance and many appear to be crumbling as of inspection date. Per standards, "Mortar should be neat and reasonably uniform in color." Respondent shall correct by appropriate means. Investigator’s Observation (Compliance Inspection): Some mud balls appear to have been stained a different color, however, the mud balls themselves appear to be in the same condition observed at initial inspection. Issue remains unresolved.

1700 W. Washington Street, Suite 105 · Phoenix AZ 85007-2812 602.542.1525 · Toll Free 877.692.9762 · roc.az.gov C013 12/23 Governing Rule: Violation of any rule adopted by the Registrar; Namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(a): A contractor shall perform all work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

Compliance Item: 10 - The vents have also not been sealed properly. Investigator’s Observation (Initial Inspection): Many vent base flashings are not secured to the roof deck and are floating above the roof surface. Overexposed roof foam is visible beneath these flashings. Tile penetrations appear to lack any tile flashing or storm collars and mortar has been applied to the penetrations instead. T-top flashings at foam roof appear flashed with wrinkled Tyvek and coated, and this does not appear to be an approved use of the Tyvek material. Mortar appears to have been used in lieu of proper metal flashing in various areas throughout the installation.

Per ROC standards,

Respondent shall ensure all penetrations are flashed as appropriate and all materials are installed per manufacturer specifications by appropriate means. Investigator’s Observation (Compliance Inspection): None of these issues appear to have been addressed by respondent during the directive timeframe. Some new

1700 W. Washington Street, Suite 105 · Phoenix AZ 85007-2812 602.542.1525 · Toll Free 877.692.9762 · roc.az.gov C013 12/23 roof jacks and base flashings appear to have been installed by other contractors and these areas have been modified. Remainder of the issues throughout the roof are still unresolved. Governing Rule: Violation of any rule adopted by the Registrar; Namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(a): A contractor shall perform all work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

Note:

Please review the complaint items listed above. If any of the items have not been corrected at the time of the compliance inspection this complaint will be forwarded to the Registrar’s legal department and a citation may be issued.

If all items are corrected after receipt of this letter, please notify the Registrar’s legal department by sending a notice of compliance signed by the complainant to fax number (602) 364-0416 or by mail to: Arizona Registrar of Contractors, P.O. Box 18244, Phoenix, Arizona 85005-8244. Sincerely,

Daniel Edwards Daniel Edwards, Investigator #218 602 771 6788 [email redacted] 1700 W Washington St, Suite 105 Phoenix, Arizona 85007-2812

1700 W. Washington Street, Suite 105 · Phoenix AZ 85007-2812 602.542.1525 · Toll Free 877.692.9762 · roc.az.gov C013 12/23 4/19/24, 7:09 AM State of Arizona Mail - Citation 2024-01094

Legal New Mail - AZROC <[email redacted]>

Citation 2024-01094 messages

Legal New Mail - AZROC <[email redacted]> Thu, Apr 18, 2024 at 1:00 PM Bcc: [email redacted], [email redacted]

Hello,

Attached please find an electronic courtesy copy of the Citation issued in this case. This document was also sent to your attention via US Mail.

Thank you,

Arizona Registrar of Contractors Legal Department

Fill out AZ ROC’s survey to let us know how we’re doing and how we can better serve you!

20240418 Citation and Complaint MAILED 2024-01094.pdf 13496K

Kevin Naughton <[email redacted]> Thu, Apr 18, 2024 at 10:55 PM To: Legal New Mail - AZROC <[email redacted]>

Hi this is Kevin from Mac Brothers LLC just to let you know I had called five days before I got the complaint at the register and talked to a guy that told me that he was the lead investigator and that because there was no contract that they wouldn't be able to help me get my money and that the homeowner could not file a complaint because there was no contract at this point my mental health is deteriorating due to this constant bombardment from somebody that was supposed to be helping to solve the problem and who I took their advice and pulled away from the job and started this whole thing so please I would like to cancel my license I'm going to retire I don't need this anymore [Quoted text hidden]

https://mail.google.com/mail/b/AEoRXRQ1LTUMd3l7tQWDSBMwxsIEGssIyZG7vfzFUAakdsjUWuLK/u/0/?ik=d3afebeda9&view=pt&search=all&permt… 1/1 REGISTRAR OF CONTRACTORS OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA

Nikhil Seth, Case No. 2024-01094 COMPLAINANT, v. Mac Brothers LLC, CITATION License No. ROC 274149, RESPONDENT.

The Registrar issues this Citation to Mac Brothers LLC (“Respondent”) under A.R.S. § 32-1155(A). If Respondent fails to answer this Citation by May 3, 2024, then under A.R.S. § 32-1155(C), Respondent’s failure to answer may be deemed an admission of the act or acts charged in the underlying complaint, and the Registrar may then suspend or revoke Respondent’s license(s). THE WRITTEN COMPLAINT On January 27, 2024, Nikhil Seth (“Complainant”) filed a written complaint with the Registrar. A copy of that Complaint is attached to this Citation. A FORMAL STATEMENT OF THE CHARGES AGAINST RESPONDENT The Registrar investigated this matter and finds cause to charge Respondent with violation(s) of Title 32, Chapter 10 of the Arizona Revised Statutes. Respondent is charged with violating: Charge: 1 A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) - R4-9-108(a) Violation of any rule adopted by the Registrar; Namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(a): A contractor shall perform all work in a professional and workmanlike manner. Charge: 2 A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(12) - A.R.S. § 32-1158

of 5

1700 W. Washington Street, Suite 105 · Phoenix AZ 85007-2812 602.542.1525 · Toll Free 877.692.9762 · roc.az.gov Lg101 8/21 Failure in any material respect to comply with this chapter; Namely A.R.S. § 32- 1158. Charge: 3 A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22) Failure to take appropriate corrective action to comply with this chapter or with rules adopted pursuant to this chapter without valid justification within a reasonable period of time after receiving a written directive from the Registrar. The written directive shall set forth the time within which the contractor is to complete the remedial action. The time permitted for compliance shall not be less than fifteen days from the date of issuance of the directive. A license shall not be revoked or suspended nor shall any other penalty be imposed for a violation of this paragraph until after a hearing has been held. If the matter proceeds to a hearing and the administrative law judge determines that any of the charges listed above are supported by a preponderance of the evidence, then Respondent’s license(s) may be subject to suspension or revocation, and Respondent may be subject to other penalties provided by law, including civil penalties under A.R.S. §§ 32-1154(E) and (F). FILING A WRITTEN ANSWER Respondent must appear by filing with the Registrar a written answer to the citation and complaint showing cause, if any, why Respondent’s license(s) should not be suspended or revoked. A.R.S. § 32-1155(A). Respondent’s written answer should contain the heading “Written Answer to Citation and Complaint” and should include the case number, which is Case No. 2024-01094. How to File a Written Answer: Respondent’s written answer may be submitted in the following ways:

of 5

1700 W. Washington Street, Suite 105 · Phoenix AZ 85007-2812 602.542.1525 · Toll Free 877.692.9762 · roc.az.gov Lg101 8/21 In-Person: 1700 W. Washington St., Ste. 105, Phoenix, Arizona, 85007-2812 Mail: P.O. Box 18244, Phoenix, Arizona, 85005-8244 Email: [email redacted] The Registrar’s normal office hours are 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. If Respondent submits a written answer by mail, it is not filed with the Registrar until the Registrar actually receives it. Deadline for Filing a Written Answer: Respondent must file a written answer with the Registrar no later than May 3, 2024. This deadline is calculated under A.R.S. §§ 32-1155(A) and (B), which provides a deadline ten days after service of the Citation. Service of the Citation and Complaint is complete five days after the Registrar mails a copy of the Citation and Complaint to Respondent’s latest address of record in the Registrar’s office. Consequences for Failing to File a Written Answer: If Respondent fails to answer, Respondent’s failure may be deemed an admission of the act or acts charged in the written complaint. A.R.S. § 32-1155(C). The Registrar may then suspend or revoke Respondent’s license(s). THE ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING If Respondent files a timely written answer contesting any charges in the Complaint, then the Registrar will request the Office of Administrative Hearings set a date for an administrative hearing and will notify all the parties at least 30 days before that hearing. A.R.S. § 41-1092.05(D). INVESTIGATOR’S APPEARANCE AS A WITNESS The Registrar’s assigned investigator will appear as a witness at the hearing. If either party demands the attendance at the hearing of any other person, that party must obtain and serve a subpoena in compliance with the rules and processes established by the Office of Administrative Hearings.

of 5

1700 W. Washington Street, Suite 105 · Phoenix AZ 85007-2812 602.542.1525 · Toll Free 877.692.9762 · roc.az.gov Lg101 8/21 RESPONDENT’S RIGHT TO REQUEST AN INFORMAL SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE Under A.R.S. § 41-1092.06, if Respondent submits a request to the Registrar for an informal settlement conference, the Registrar must hold a conference within 15 days after receiving the request. Respondent’s request for an informal settlement conference must be in writing and must be filed no later than 20 days before the administrative hearing. A.R.S. § 41- 1092.06(A).

The Registrar will not close or settle any case without both parties’ appearance at the Settlement Conference. The parties participating in the settlement conference must have the authority to settle the case and must waive their right to object to the participation of the Registrar’s settlement conference representative in the final administrative decision. A.R.S. § 41-1092.06(B). Any statements, either written or oral, made by the parties at the conference, including a written document, created or expressed solely for the purpose of settlement negotiations, are inadmissible in the administrative hearing. A.R.S. § 41-1092.06(B). RESPONDENT’S PRIOR RECORD Under A.A.C. R4-9-117, in determining the appropriate discipline, the administrative law judge and the Registrar may consider not only facts in the current case, but also facts in prior cases and any documents regarding Respondent on file with the Registrar. Respondent’s prior disciplinary record and current license(s) status may be considered as a mitigating or aggravating factor in determining the appropriate discipline. EVIDENTIARY DISCLAIMER By issuing this Citation, the Registrar is directing Respondent to file a written answer to the Citation and Complaint, showing cause, if any, why Respondent’s license(s) should not be suspended or revoked. A.R.S. § 32-1155(A). This Citation does not constitute proof that any charge or allegation in Complainant’s written complaint is in fact true. This Citation does not

of 5

1700 W. Washington Street, Suite 105 · Phoenix AZ 85007-2812 602.542.1525 · Toll Free 877.692.9762 · roc.az.gov Lg101 8/21 constitute proof that Respondent violated any statutory provision or rule adopted by the Registrar. Dated April 18, 2024. By: /s/ Meridith Bell Meridith Bell Legal Assistant II Legal Department Arizona Registrar of Contractors COPY of the foregoing mailed by Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested, April 18, 2024 to: Respondent Certified Mail No: [number redacted] Mac Brothers LLC 8343 W. Calle Lejos Peoria, AZ 85383 Copy mailed by USPS First Class mail this same date to: Respondent Mac Brothers LLC 8343 W. Calle Lejos Peoria, AZ 85383 Respondent Mac Brothers LLC 13802 N. 50th St. Scottsdale, AZ 85254-2864 Complainant Nikhil Seth 27372 N. 90th Ln. Peoria, AZ 85383 Copy sent electronically this same date to:

Respondent at email address on record with the Registrar Complainant at email address on record with the Registrar Case No. 2024-01094

of 5

1700 W. Washington Street, Suite 105 · Phoenix AZ 85007-2812 602.542.1525 · Toll Free 877.692.9762 · roc.az.gov Lg101 8/21 Background of the Case

Nikhil Seth owner builder started a new construc8on on 8410 W Parkview Court, Peoria, AZ 85383. The permits were received in December 2022 and construc8on started soon thereof.

To help him build the house he hired a GC Lars PeMersen to be his GC/Adviser.

Once plans had been drawn up Mr. Seth started lining up his trades and other subcontractors. The trades and contractors were hired when available based on Mr. PeMersen’s ‘Rolodex’ or directly by Mr. Seth. These were folks who Mr. PeMersen had worked with in the past or knew.

One of the trades was Mr. Kevin Naughton of MAC Brothers LLC rooﬁng. Mr. PeMersen recommended Mr. Naughton and based on preliminary discussions Mr. Naughton provided a price of $50,000 all in for the roof to Mr. PeMersen. Mr. Seth then contacted Mr. Naughton through a text message as follows: The key point in this text is that right from the start Mr. Seth had made it clear that the price whatever it be, will be for the full roof ﬂat and pitched all in.

A[er Mr. Naughton had reviewed the plans, Mr. Seth met Mr. Naughton at Mr. Naughton’s residence. Mr. Naughton indicated a[er reviewing the plans he was willing to do the job for $56,000. Mr. Seth agreed to this. At that stage, one other item was agreed to that if the supply house will agree to it then Mr. Seth will be paying for the material via his credit card and the amount would come oﬀ the $56,000.

Based on the above Mr. Seth made a payment on his credit card as follows:

Prior to the start of the job Mr. Naughton advised that instead of using the Boral underlayment the Tyvek would be beMer and is less cost. Mr. Seth agreed to that even though the original deal was to use Boral in $56,000. This was a concession made by Mr. Seth which in essence provided Mr. Naughton with a higher price of around $2-$3K than originally agreed to.

As work started Mr. Seth made mul8ple payments to Mr. Naughton as follows:

The cash payment was made as he said he needed to pay the roof 8le loaders in cash.

Based on the above Mr. Seth owes Mr. Naughton as follows:

Notwithstanding the above facts, Mr. Naughton at the end of December declared that the job was complete and sent me a bill which in essence turned the job into him wan8ng $18,000 for labor and all other costs were mine. Based on that he sent a bill that showed that Mr. Seth now owed him $10,379.50 His calcula8on is based on a ‘material list’ that I am now responsible for and him pocke8ng $7,000 for ﬂat roof material and $ 3,000 to the roof loaders resul8ng then in him having received only $8,000 for his labor. The material list is as follows: My posi8on is as follows: • From the beginning the conversa8on centered around a full price which ini8ally was $50,000 and then raised to $56,000. Nowhere was any talk of this being a job where I am paying for material and he is geeng $18,000. Not only is his ﬁnal bill erroneous he has now introduced another line item saying the price for his labor actually is $22,150 but he is giving me a discount and only charging me $18,000 if I pay promptly.

Based on this he has ﬁled a mechanics lien against me for the full amount that he believes I owe him.

In addi8on, the key element is the job is not done. The following items are incomplete:

Nikhil Seth owner builder started a new construc�on on 8410 W Parkview Court, Peoria, AZ 85383. The permits were received in December 2022 and construc�on started soon thereof.

To help him build the house he hired a GC Lars Petersen to be his GC/Adviser.

Once plans had been drawn up Mr. Seth started lining up his trades and other subcontractors. The trades and contractors were hired when available based on Mr. Petersen’s ‘Rolodex’ or directly by Mr. Seth. These were folks who Mr. Petersen had worked with in the past or knew.

One of the trades was Mr. Kevin Naughton of MAC Brothers LLC rooﬁng. Mr. Petersen recommended Mr. Naughton and based on preliminary discussions Mr. Naughton provided a price of $50,000 all in for the roof to Mr. Petersen. Mr. Seth then contacted Mr. Naughton through a text message as follows: The key point in this text is that right from the start Mr. Seth had made it clear that the price whatever it be, will be for the full roof ﬂat and pitched all in.

A�er Mr. Naughton had reviewed the plans, Mr. Seth met Mr. Naughton at Mr. Naughton’s residence. Mr. Naughton indicated a�er reviewing the plans he was willing to do the job for $56,000. Mr. Seth agreed to this. At that stage, one other item was agreed to that if the supply house will agree to it then Mr. Seth will be paying for the material via his credit card and the amount would come oﬀ the $56,000.

Based on the above Mr. Seth made a payment on his credit card as follows:

Prior to the start of the job Mr. Naughton advised that instead of using the Boral underlayment the Tyvek would be beter and is less cost. Mr. Seth agreed to that even though the original deal was to use Boral in $56,000. This was a concession made by Mr. Seth which in essence provided Mr. Naughton with a higher price of around $2-$3K than originally agreed to.

As work started Mr. Seth made mul�ple payments to Mr. Naughton as follows:

The cash payment was made as he said he needed to pay the roof �le loaders in cash.

Based on the above Mr. Seth owes Mr. Naughton as follows:

Notwithstanding the above facts, Mr. Naughton at the end of December declared that the job was complete and sent me a bill which in essence turned the job into him wan�ng $18,000 for labor and all other costs were mine. Based on that he sent a bill that showed that Mr. Seth now owed him $10,379.50 His calcula�on is based on a ‘material list’ that I am now responsible for and him pocke�ng $7,000 for ﬂat roof material and $ 3,000 to the roof loaders resul�ng then in him having received only $8,000 for his labor. The material list is as follows: My posi�on is as follows: • From the beginning the conversa�on centered around a full price which ini�ally was $50,000 and then raised to $56,000. Nowhere was any talk of this being a job where I am paying for material and he is ge�ng $18,000. Not only is his ﬁnal bill erroneous he has now introduced another line item saying the price for his labor actually is $22,150 but he is giving me a discount and only charging me $18,000 if I pay promptly.

Based on this he has ﬁled a mechanics lien against me for the full amount that he believes I owe him.

In addi�on, the key element is the job is not done. The following items are incomplete:

I believe he has ﬁled the lien to coerce and in�midate me. This is an invalid lien and ﬁled with malicious intent and he will have to pay me for damages and I believe minimum $ 5,000 for an erroneous lien. Background of the Case

Nikhil Seth owner builder started a new construc8on on 8410 W Parkview Court, Peoria, AZ 85383. The permits were received in December 2022 and construc8on started soon thereof.

To help him build the house he hired a GC Lars PeMersen to be his GC/Adviser.

Based on the above Mr. Seth made a payment on his credit card as follows:

As work started Mr. Seth made mul8ple payments to Mr. Naughton as follows:

The cash payment was made as he said he needed to pay the roof 8le loaders in cash.

Based on the above Mr. Seth owes Mr. Naughton as follows:

Based on this he has ﬁled a mechanics lien against me for the full amount that he believes I owe him.

In addi8on, the key element is the job is not done. The following items are incomplete:

Legal New Mail - AZROC <[email redacted]>

RE: Case No. 2024-01094 message

Mac Brothers <[email redacted]> Fri, May 10, 2024 at 7:59 PM To: [email redacted] Cc: "[email redacted]" <[email redacted]>, "[email redacted]" <[email redacted]>

Further response to Case No. 2024-01094 attached and below.

Nikhil Seth V. Mac Brothers LLC (ROC 274149).

In response to the complaint/allegation presented by Mr. Nikhil Seth, please see the below:

1. Mr. Naughton was contacted by Lars Southwest (Fred Peterson) to provide an estimate on the tiled and flat roof sections of the home as a sub-contractor. There was no contract written on the job by MAC BROTHERS, LLC, only verbal agreements based on multiple telephonic and cellular text-message conversations. The screenshots provided in Mr. Seth’s complaint are in no way the totality of the conversation. MAC BROTHERS, LLC is unaware of any contract provided by Lars Southwest.

The structure had not been built at the time of the request, and Mr. Naughton was asked to provide an estimate based on drawings. All parties were advised that, based on the drawings provided, it would not be possible to provide an accurate estimate, especially on the flat section of the home, but a rough estimate could be provided.

The total of estimated material and labor in preliminary phases of the conversation was $57,123.00. This was based on an estimated 100 square of tile (at approximately $500 per square – depending upon material choice) and 15 square of foamed flat-deck at $300 per square + waste, etc. It was agreed that all materials would be paid for by the contractor/home-owner and that labor would paid to Mr. Naughton separately. All parties were advised that the estimate provided would be for labor and roof materials only and that there would be additional cost for loaders and any ancillary materials required to complete the job.

Upon completion of construction, it was discovered that the foam section included parapet walls, dead valleys, hidden flat sections that could not be seen on drawings provided, as they were obscured by overhangs, etc. The actual area of the roof came out to be 107 square of Tile and 40 square of foamed flat- deck. For a total of $65,500.00. Again, this does not include the cost for loaders and ancillary materials. All parties were advised, at this time, that actual total cost for the job would be in the neighborhood of $67k.

2. While MAC BROTHERS, LLC was under the impression that they were sub-contracted by Lars Southwest, it was, indeed, Mr. Seth who issued checks to Mr. Naughton directly (not issued to MAC BROTHERS) Payments received are as follows.

$3000 cash – paid out to loading crew, as agreed (not included in estimate) $7,000 for foam and coating – Reimbursement to Mr. Naughton for materials purchased $4,000 towards labor – Issued upon completion of the “dry-in” of the roof. $4,000 towards labor – Issued after half of tile had been set and foam had been sprayed.

Mr. Naughton is, technically, still owed approximately $18,500.00; however, he requested a total of $10,379.50 to cover remaining cost of labor, in compromise. This does not include additional materials that Mr. Naughton covered out of pocket which he is still liable for.

When presented with the request for payment, the home-owner was very confrontational, denying his past agreements and making threats to file complaints, etc. Mr. Seth eventually offered $3500.00 to settle the RECEIVED LEGAL debt. Mr. Naughton did not accept this offer and advised that he would contacting the registrar5/10/2024 of contractors himself.

3. Aside from the changes in scope/size of the job, multiple other changes impacted total cost of job: a. S-Tile instead of Flat – Causing changes to application of vents, extra time in returning and purchasing different materials to accommodate, and other additional labor. b. After foam decks were sprayed and dry in was completed, MANY holes were cut into deck for vents and other penetrations, creating leak, requiring rework, and compromising the integrity of the foam roof applied. (Approximately 25 vent holes into the structure after the roof-work had already commenced.)

4. We cannot respond to anything from Universal Roofing Specialists as we are not aware of this company, nor have we received any communications from them. However, we are aware that the homeowner had multiple contractors from various trades walking on the roof, making alterations to the work done, etc.

5. Due to the failure of Mr. Seth to agree to final amount due and the confrontations that ensued regarding payment, Mr. Naughton began exploring the options to secure payment for the work performed, even going so far as beginning the process of filing a mechanic’s lien. On January 23rd, Mr. Naughton contacted the AZ Registrar of Contractors to explain the situation and discuss his options. The representative at the Registrar stated that because there was no formal contract, there was nothing that they could do to assist either party. Mr. Naughton further inquired about the possibility of filing a mechanic’s lien and was advised by the Registrar’s representative that this would not likely help him recover the remaining payment due. Based on the guidance of the Registrar, Mr. Naughton chose to forgo the execution of the mechanic’s lien and opted to pull off the job and “cut his losses”.

It seems that Mr. Seth had somehow discovered that Mr. Naughton was considering filing a lein and, in retaliation, has filed a complaint with the AZ Registrar of Contractors. In his complaint, Mr. Seth is claiming that there are multiple unresolved leaks in the roof. These leaks are a result of the penetrations that were made after the completion of the roof. While Mr. Naughton may have been willing to assist with resolving these issues, Mr. Seth’s failure to abide by the terms of the verbal agreement and inability to reason or come to an agreement on the final amount due led to Mr. Naughton pulling away from the job.

Mr. Seth also claims that Mr. Naughton had presented bills that are not as agreed, and for change requests that were not approved, but this is false. As previously mentioned, all parties were advised that the total amount for the job would be “in the neighborhood of $67k”. There was no formal contact written, and any changes were imposed by the home-owner, not on the part of Mr. Naughton.

Finally, Mr. Seth claims that Mr. Naughton filed erroneous lien against his property in an attempt to intimidate him into paying the remaining due balance owed. This complaint, along with the suggestion that Mr. Naughton should pay “damages” in the amount of $5,000.00 to Mr. Seth for filing an “invalid lien” with “malicious intent” is completely baseless as there was no lien filed against Mr. Seth’s property.

Mr. Naughton responded to the complaint communicated from the ROC advising them that there was no contract, and that the home-owner was refusing to pay. He stated that he had gone to Registrar for assistance with this issue and was advised that with no contract, there was nothing they could do to assist either party. Mr. Naughton also advised that this entire ordeal has been detrimental to his health, and that if the determination was made to cancel his license he would welcome this, as he is no longer in the construction business.

Kevin Response Registrar&Bond.docx 19K RECEIVED LEGAL 5/10/2024

RE: Case No. 2024-01094

Nikhil Seth V. Mac Brothers LLC (ROC 274149).

In response to the complaint/allega�on presented by Mr. Nikhil Seth, please see the below:

1. Mr. Naughton was contacted by Lars Southwest (Fred Peterson) to provide an es�mate on the �led and ﬂat roof sec�ons of the home as a sub-contractor. There was no contract writen on the job by MAC BROTHERS, LLC, only verbal agreements based on mul�ple telephonic and cellular text-message conversa�ons. The screenshots provided in Mr. Seth’s complaint are in no way the totality of the conversa�on. MAC BROTHERS, LLC is unaware of any contract provided by Lars Southwest.

The structure had not been built at the �me of the request, and Mr. Naughton was asked to provide an es�mate based on drawings. All par�es were advised that, based on the drawings provided, it would not be possible to provide an accurate es�mate, especially on the ﬂat sec�on of the home, but a rough es�mate could be provided.

The total of es�mated material and labor in preliminary phases of the conversa�on was $57,123.00. This was based on an es�mated 100 square of �le (at approximately $500 per square – depending upon material choice) and 15 square of foamed ﬂat-deck at $300 per square + waste, etc. It was agreed that all materials would be paid for by the contractor/home-owner and that labor would paid to Mr. Naughton separately. All par�es were advised that the es�mate provided would be for labor and roof materials only and that there would be addi�onal cost for loaders and any ancillary materials required to complete the job.

Upon comple�on of construc�on, it was discovered that the foam sec�on included parapet walls, dead valleys, hidden ﬂat sec�ons that could not be seen on drawings provided, as they were obscured by overhangs, etc. The actual area of the roof came out to be 107 square of Tile and 40 square of foamed ﬂat-deck. For a total of $65,500.00. Again, this does not include the cost for loaders and ancillary materials. All par�es were advised, at this �me, that actual total cost for the job would be in the neighborhood of $67k.

$3000 cash – paid out to loading crew, as agreed (not included in es�mate) $7,000 for foam and coa�ng – Reimbursement to Mr. Naughton for materials purchased $4,000 towards labor – Issued upon comple�on of the “dry-in” of the roof. $4,000 towards labor – Issued a�er half of �le had been set and foam had been sprayed. RECEIVED LEGAL 5/10/2024

Mr. Naughton is, technically, s�ll owed approximately $18,500.00; however, he requested a total of $10,379.50 to cover remaining cost of labor, in compromise. This does not include addi�onal materials that Mr. Naughton covered out of pocket which he is s�ll liable for.

When presented with the request for payment, the home-owner was very confronta�onal, denying his past agreements and making threats to ﬁle complaints, etc. Mr. Seth eventually oﬀered $3500.00 to setle the debt. Mr. Naughton did not accept this oﬀer and advised that he would contac�ng the registrar of contractors himself.

3. Aside from the changes in scope/size of the job, mul�ple other changes impacted total cost of job: a. S-Tile instead of Flat – Causing changes to applica�on of vents, extra �me in returning and purchasing diﬀerent materials to accommodate, and other addi�onal labor. b. A�er foam decks were sprayed and dry in was completed, MANY holes were cut into deck for vents and other penetra�ons, crea�ng leak, requiring rework, and compromising the integrity of the foam roof applied. (Approximately 25 vent holes into the structure a�er the roof-work had already commenced.)

4. We cannot respond to anything from Universal Rooﬁng Specialists as we are not aware of this company, nor have we received any communica�ons from them. However, we are aware that the homeowner had mul�ple contractors from various trades walking on the roof, making altera�ons to the work done, etc.

5. Due to the failure of Mr. Seth to agree to ﬁnal amount due and the confronta�ons that ensued regarding payment, Mr. Naughton began exploring the op�ons to secure payment for the work performed, even going so far as beginning the process of ﬁling a mechanic’s lien. On January 23rd, Mr. Naughton contacted the AZ Registrar of Contractors to explain the situa�on and discuss his op�ons. The representa�ve at the Registrar stated that because there was no formal contract, there was nothing that they could do to assist either party. Mr. Naughton further inquired about the possibility of ﬁling a mechanic’s lien and was advised by the Registrar’s representa�ve that this would not likely help him recover the remaining payment due. Based on the guidance of the Registrar, Mr. Naughton chose to forgo the execu�on of the mechanic’s lien and opted to pull oﬀ the job and “cut his losses”.

It seems that Mr. Seth had somehow discovered that Mr. Naughton was considering ﬁling a lein and, in retalia�on, has ﬁled a complaint with the AZ Registrar of Contractors. In his complaint, Mr. Seth is claiming that there are mul�ple unresolved leaks in the roof. These leaks are a result of the penetra�ons that were made a�er the comple�on of the roof. While Mr. Naughton may have been willing to assist with resolving these issues, Mr. Seth’s failure to abide by the terms of the verbal agreement and inability to reason or come to an agreement on the ﬁnal amount due led to Mr. Naughton pulling away from the job. RECEIVED LEGAL 5/10/2024

Mr. Seth also claims that Mr. Naughton had presented bills that are not as agreed, and for change requests that were not approved, but this is false. As previously men�oned, all par�es were advised that the total amount for the job would be “in the neighborhood of $67k”. There was no formal contact writen, and any changes were imposed by the home-owner, not on the part of Mr. Naughton.

Finally, Mr. Seth claims that Mr. Naughton ﬁled erroneous lien against his property in an atempt to in�midate him into paying the remaining due balance owed. This complaint, along with the sugges�on that Mr. Naughton should pay “damages” in the amount of $5,000.00 to Mr. Seth for ﬁling an “invalid lien” with “malicious intent” is completely baseless as there was no lien ﬁled against Mr. Seth’s property.

Mr. Naughton responded to the complaint from the ROC advising them that there was no contract, and that the home-owner was refusing to pay. He stated that he had gone to Registrar for assistance with this issue and was advised that with no contract, there was nothing they could do to assist either party. Mr. Naughton also advise that this en�re ordeal has been detrimental to his health, and that if the determina�on was made to cancel his license he would welcome this, as he is no longer in the construc�on business. Mediation Notice

Mediation Services Mediation services are available to the parties. What is Mediation? Mediation is a method of resolving disputes where the parties can end conflict without the expense and time associated with the full administrative process. Who Participates in During mediation, a mediator will attempt to help the Mediation? parties find an optimal solution to the conflict. Both parties must agree to participate in mediation, and both parties must bring a representative to mediation that has full authority to settle the entire matter. Mediation Is Not Neither the Registrar nor the Office of Administrative Mandatory Hearings will penalize a party for not agreeing to mediation. Where do the Parties The parties will meet at the Office of Administrative Meet for Mediation? Hearings to participate in mediation.

The Office of Administrative Hearings is located at 1400 West Washington, Suite 101, Phoenix, Arizona 85007. When does Mediation can occur after the Registrar issues a citation, but Mediation Occur? before the administrative hearing. Why Should Parties Mediation can be an alternative to the full administrative Consider Mediation? process. Mediation is beneficial because it is (1) time- efficient, (2) cost-effective, (3) confidential, and (4) capable of providing flexible solutions to complex problems. How to Request If the parties wish to mediate this case, they must file a Joint Mediation Request for Mediation with the Office of Administrative Hearings. A Joint Request for Mediation is included with this Mediation Notice. REGISTRAR OF CONTRACTORS OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA _________________________ Case No. _______________ COMPLAINANT,

v. JOINT REQUEST FOR MEDIATION _________________________ RESPONDENT.

REQUEST

The parties jointly request that this matter be referred to mediation in the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH). ☐ This matter is set for hearing on __________________(date). ☐ This matter is not currently set for hearing. MEDIATION AGREEMENT By requesting this mediation and signing below, the parties understand, represent, and agree: 1. The parties are prepared to commence mediation and will be ready for mediation on _____________________(date); 2. The parties will participate in the mediation process in good faith; 3. This request for mediation is not intended to hinder or delay administrative proceedings; 4. No party will contend that the mediation limits the power of OAH and its administrative law judges to conduct an administrative hearing and issue decisions under A.R.S. §§ 41-1092 – 1092.12; 5. The parties will be courteous and respectful throughout the mediation process to all participants; 6. The mediation is completely voluntary and the principal purpose is to allow the parties a full and fair opportunity to discuss settlement; of 3 REGISTRAR OF CONTRACTORS 1700 W. Washington St. Suite 105 – PHOENIX, AZ 85007-2812 Telephone (602)542-1525 1-877-692-9762 7. The mediator may conduct joint and separate meetings with the parties and may suggest resolutions to the parties’ dispute, but the mediator has no authority to impose a settlement upon the parties; 8. The mediation process is confidential. Communications made, material created for or used during, and acts occurring during mediation are confidential and may not be discovered or admitted into evidence in any proceeding except as provided by A.R.S. § 12-2238; 9. The mediator is not subject to service of process or a subpoena to produce evidence or to testify regarding any evidence or occurrence relating to the mediation except as provided in A.R.S. § 12-2238(C); 10. Neither the mediator, nor the Registrar of Contractors, nor the Office of Administrative Hearings is subject to civil liability for any act or omission in connection with any mediation service or activity except for acts involving

intentional misconduct or reckless disregard of a substantial risk of injury to the rights of others; 11. Throughout the mediation process, each party must have a representative present who will have full settlement authority to settle all claims at issue in the administrative

proceeding. 12. The mediation process will terminate when: a. The parties reach settlement; b. The mediator determines that further efforts at mediation are no longer likely

to achieve a settlement; or c. One of the parties withdraws from mediation. _____________________________________ _______________________ Complainant (or representative) Date

_____________________________________ _______________________ Respondent (or representative) Date

of 3 REGISTRAR OF CONTRACTORS 1700 W. Washington St. Suite 105 – PHOENIX, AZ 85007-2812 Telephone (602)542-1525 1-877-692-9762 PREHEARING DISCLOSURE STATEMENT INSTRUCTIONS ***DO NOT SUBMIT THESE INSTRUCTIONS WITH THE PREHEARING DISCLOSURE FORM***

ADMINISTRATIVE RULES A copy of the Arizona Administrative Code’s Rules for the Registrar of Contractors can be located on the Registrar’s Website.

PREHEARING DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENT Under A.A.C. R4-9-118(A), before a hearing, the parties must prepare a disclosure statement. The disclosure statement must contain: • A list of all the witnesses the party will call to testify, including the witnesses’ contact information and a brief description of the subject matter of the witnesses’ expected testimony; and • A list of all the exhibits that the party will use at the hearing.

FILE PREHEARING DISCLOSURE STATEMENTS • The Prehearing Disclosure Statements and Exhibits may be submitted to the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings using any of the following: • Electronically: https://portal.azoah.com/submission/ • In-Person or by Mail: 1740 West Adams Street, Lower Level, Phoenix, Arizona 85007

EXCHANGING DISCLOSURE STATEMENTS AND EXHIBITS Under A.A.C. R4-9-118(B) (effective November 5, 2017), a party to the hearing must serve on every other party and file with the Office of Administrative Hearings a copy of: • The disclosure statement; and, • Any exhibit that the party will use at the hearing. Service: The disclosure statement and exhibits must be served on all parties in accordance with Arizona Administrative Code R2-19-108 Filing Documents. Under A.A.C. R2-19-108, service is completed by: • Personal delivery; • 1st class, certified or express mail; or • Facsimile. Timing: The disclosure statement and the exhibits must be served and filed not less than seven calendar days before the date of the hearing. Under A.A.C. R2-19-108, a document is served on a party: • On the date it is personally served; • Five days after it is mailed by express or 1st class mail; • On the date of the return receipt if it is mailed by certified mail; or • On the date indicated on the facsimile transmission.

CONSEQUENCES FOR FAILING TO DISCLOSE Under A.A.C. R4-9-108(C), if a witness or an exhibit is not timely disclosed as required the rules, and good cause for the failure to disclose is not shown, then the administrative law judge may: • Order that certain witnesses or exhibits not be used at the hearing; • Order that a particular fact is or is not established for the record; or, • Order that a charge, a defense, a claim, or some portion thereof, be dismissed.

Form RC-L-800A Prehearing Disclosure Statement Rev. 10/08/2019 Instructions Form PREHEARING DISCLOSURE STATEMENT FORM RC-L-800A

PART 1: WITNESS LIST DOCKET NO. Under A.A.C. R4-9-118(A), before a hearing, a party must prepare a disclosure statement containing a list of all the witnesses the party will call to testify, including the witnesses’ contact information and a brief description of the subject matter of the witnesses’ expected testimony. If you need additional space to list all witnesses, complete and attach additional Witness Lists. Example 1. Name 2. Telephone Number 3. Email Address

John Doe (123) 456-7890 [email redacted] 4. Subject Matter of Expected Testimony

John Doe will testify regarding the poor workmanship and poor installation of the Garage Door. Mr. Doe will also testify regarding the invoices and change orders for the project.

Witness 1. Name 2. Telephone Number 3. Email Address

4. Subject Matter of Expected Testimony

Witness 1. Name 2. Telephone Number 3. Email Address

4. Subject Matter of Expected Testimony

Witness 1. Name 2. Telephone Number 3. Email Address

4. Subject Matter of Expected Testimony

Witness 1. Name 2. Telephone Number 3. Email Address

4. Subject Matter of Expected Testimony

Form RC-L-800A Prehearing Disclosure Statement Rev. 1/15/2019 Page 1 of 3 PART 2: EXHIBIT LIST DOCKET NO. Under A.A.C. R4-9-118(A), before a hearing, a party must prepare a disclosure statement containing a list of all the exhibits that the party will use at the hearing. Note: All exhibits listed below must be provided to all parties to the hearing. See A.A.C. R4-9-118(B). If you need additional space to list all witnesses, complete and attach additional Exhibit Lists. Example Contract for new garage door. Invoice #10001 – Cost for garage door replacement.

Exhibit Exhibit Name

Form RC-L-800A Prehearing Disclosure Statement Rev. 1/15/2019 Page 2 of 3 PART 3: ACKNOWLEDGEMENT & SIGNATURE I certify that the above information is true and correct and that I will serve a copy of this disclosure statement and any exhibits listed in Part 2 to all parties to the hearing in accordance with A.A.C. R4-9-118. I acknowledge and understand that if I fail to properly disclose a witness or exhibit, the administrative law judge may: • Order that certain witnesses or exhibits not be used at the hearing; • Order that a particular fact is or is not established for the record; or, • Order that a charge, a defense, a claim, or some portion thereof, be dismissed.

I am the (check one):  Complainant  Respondent Docket No.

Print Name Signature Date

Form RC-L-800A Prehearing Disclosure Statement Rev. 1/15/2019 Page 3 of 3