ALJDEC - Licensing

2024A-03236-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2025-06-10

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

Arturo Alatorre,

COMPLAINANT,

v.

Wolff Development, LLC

License No. ROC 328444,

RESPONDENT.

No. 2024A-03236-CHC-ROC

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION

HEARING: May 22, 2025

APPEARANCES: Complainant Arturo Alatorre appeared on his own behalf. Brian DiPietro, Esq. represented Respondent Wolff Development, LLC. Pavel Rosas appeared as a representative of Respondent Wolff Development, LLC. Registrar of Contractors Investigator Robert Di Alto appeared as a witness. Interpreter Priscilla Medina provided translation services.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Sondra J. Vanella

EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: Administrative Notice taken of Agency Record; Respondent Wolff Development, LLC’s Exhibits 1, 3, 4, 6-12

FINDINGS OF FACT

Wolff Development, LLC (“Respondent”) is the holder of License Number 328444 issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (“Registrar”). Brian George DiPietro is Respondent’s Qualifying Party and Member. Pavel Rosas is a Member of Respondent.

On or about October 2, 2022, Arturo Alatorre (“Complainant”) contracted with Respondent for Respondent to obtain the permits for the right of way for the plumbing to run new sewer and water lines, and to saw cut per approved plans for electric. The cost of the contract included architect fees and plans, as well as the labor and material costs for the plumbing work for the sewer and water lines. The contract price was $32,864.00. Complainant has paid Respondent approximately $45,000.00.

On or about March 15, 2024, the Registrar received a Complaint against Respondent from Complainant alleging abandonment of the project.

The Registrar assigned the Complaint to Investigator Robert Di Alto. After an April 25, 2024 Jobsite Inspection, at which both parties were present, Investigator Di Alto issued a Written Directive to Respondent dated April 25, 2024, that provided as follows:

After investigation, the Registrar determined that you failed to meet the requirements of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A), and now issues this Directive requiring you to take appropriate corrective action. Failure to comply with this Directive constitutes a violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22) and may result in the issuance of a citation, discipline of your license, and a civil penalty pursuant to A.R.S. § 32-1154(E) of up to $500.00. You must notify the Registrar’s assigned Investigator of your compliance with this Directive prior to 5:00 p.m. on 05/17/2024.

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

Compliance Item: 1- Contract to install utilities to 2 new homes (sewer line, water line and electrical) Work not started.

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. Respondent acknowledged that the utilities had not been started and stated that they were working on finalizing with the City of Phoenix. All parties agreed that 3 weeks (21 days) would be reasonable to complete the work as per the contract. Please note that ARS §32-1154 (A)(8) states: Failure in a material respect by the licensee to complete a construction project or operation for the price stated in the contract, or in any modification of the contract, is a violation of State Law. The Respondent shall complete the contract by the appropriate means.

Investigator Di Alto granted one extension of the deadline for compliance with the Written Directive to June 20, 2024.

After the June 20, 2024 extended deadline for compliance with the Written Directive, Investigator Di Alto ascertained that Respondent had not complied with the Written Directive. Thereafter, Investigator Di Alto forwarded the Complaint to the Registrar’s Legal Department. The Registrar issued a Citation against Respondent charging possible violations of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(a), A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(8), and A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22).

Respondent timely filed a written Answer to the Citation and the matter was referred to the Office of Administrative Hearing, an independent State agency, for an administrative hearing.

The hearing of this matter was initially scheduled to convene on December 4, 2024, at 1:00 p.m. On the date and at the time set for hearing, Complainant appeared on his own behalf. Brian DiPietro, Esq. represented Respondent. Pavel Rosas was present on behalf of Respondent. Investigator Di Alto was present. Interpreter Lydia Solis provided translation services. The parties participated in a lengthy prehearing discussion outside of the presence of the Administrative Law Judge. As a result of that discussion, the parties entered into a settlement agreement, however, needed additional time in which to execute the terms of that agreement. Therefore, the hearing was continued and set for a written Status Update on April 1, 2025.

On April 2, 2025, Complainant filed a Status Update advising that Respondent had breached the parties’ agreement. Consequently, the matter was set for a continued hearing on May 22, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. Complainant appeared on his own behalf. Mr. DiPietro represented Respondent. Mr. Rosas appeared on behalf of Respondent. Investigator Di Alto appeared as a witness. Interpreter Priscilla Medina provided translation services.

Investigator Di Alto testified consistently with the findings contained in his Jobsite Inspection notes and the Written Directive. Investigator Di Alto testified that the project involves two single family homes that were previously constructed with no utilities, which he characterized as a “unique” situation, as utility lines are usually installed prior to construction. Investigator Di Alto also emphasized that he had “no idea why [obtaining a] permit would take so long.” Investigator Di Alto explained that the parties had initially planned to install the utilities underground from across the street as there was no overhead power. Investigator Di Alto testified that Cox was working in the area and that the markings for the sewer and water lines had already been placed. Although Cox had utilized the right of way that Respondent had planned to use, Investigator Di Alto testified that a different right of way could have been obtained. Further, the only change needed to obtain a permit was the type of sewer line material Respondent was using and another right of way accessed. Investigator Di Alto testified that there was no reason Respondent could not have obtained the permit or a right of way within the time frame provided in the Written Directive, and that Respondent did not provide any documentation to him regarding any delay or other issues with obtaining a permit.

It was not until July 9, 2025, that Respondent’s counsel emailed Investigator Di Alto the following:

Wolff Development has complied with the directive of May 20, 2024 by submitting a site plan to the City of Phoenix Planning and Development on May 16, 2024, requesting expedited review.

As of today the City has not yet responded to the application for permit. Wolff Development is unable to proceed with work until the approval of the City.

Attachments of application are included.

As soon as the plan is approved Wolff Development is prepared to proceed with work.

Investigator Di Alto testified that it is not unusual for a municipality to take three to four months to issue a permit, and that he would have extended the Written Directive had there been communication from Respondent during the period of the Written Directive. However, in this case, that communication was weeks after the expiration of the extended deadline of the Written Directive.

Investigator Di Alto testified that the work required of Respondent is not complicated and it is common. Therefore, it “does not make sense [to take] two years for a permit for [this] scope of work.”

Complainant had obtained plans from an architect that were dated August 4, 2022, prior to the parties’ contract date.

Respondent alleged at hearing that a right of way permit was issued on January 4, 2023, and that a permit for the project was issued on July 3, 2023, however, Respondent did not perform any work. Respondent was also aware in May 2023, prior to the issuance of the permit, that Cox had been granted the right of way, as it had taken so long for Respondent to obtain a permit. Respondent alleged that it had been communicating with the city from July 11, 2023, through October 2023, however, Respondent did not provide evidence of these communications during the hearing.

Respondent further alleged that the contract price was $65,000.00, as the subcontractors Respondent hired charged more than anticipated, and that material prices increased because of the delays. Investigator Di Alto testified that Complainant contracted with Respondent and it was Respondent’s responsibility to hire subcontractors for the price stated in the contract.

Pavel Rosas, Respondent’s managing partner, testified that the first $25,000.00 paid by Complainant covered the costs of the architect and costs associated with obtaining the permit. Mr. Rosas testified that issues were encountered because Complainant was “doing the house backwards.” Mr. Rosas alleged that Respondent was not aware of the scope of work until it obtained the permit in July 2023. Mr. Rosas explained that the city condemned the alley that was to be used for the right of way. Consequently, Respondent “had to figure out what the city would allow them to do” because it was a “different type of work” due to Respondent having to utilize a city street instead of an alleyway.

Respondent applied on April 11, 2024, and April 29, 2024, for a right of way. Mr. Rosas testified that Respondent was actively trying to obtain the permit.

Mr. Rosas testified that Complainant would not agree to use Respondent’s subcontractors because he believed they were too expensive and he demanded proof that the subcontractors were licensed. Mr. Rosas asserted that Complainant’s demand of proof of licensure delayed the work because Mr. Rosas did not have identifying information for the contractors. However, by July 2023, when Respondent had initially obtained a permit, Complainant had approved all of the subcontractors.

Respondent admittedly did not perform any work on the project.

Administrative notice is taken of Respondent’s prior License record on June 9, 2025. Such prior License record reflects that Respondent’s License Number 328444 was first issued on April 13, 2020, and is active. Such prior License record also reflects that there are three open complaints including the instant open Complaint, no resolved/settled complaints, and no complaints resulting in discipline against Respondent’s license.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

This matter lies within the Registrar’s jurisdiction.

Complainant bears the burden of proof to establish Respondent’s statutory violations by a preponderance of the evidence. “A preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.”

The evidence established that Respondent failed to timely obtain a permit for the project notwithstanding that the parties contracted for such in October 2022. Such failure resulted in the right of way being given to Cox, requiring Respondent to obtain another permit which Respondent failed to timely accomplish. Therefore, Complainant established that Respondent did not complete the project in a professional and workmanlike manner in violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(A).

The evidence established that the parties’ contract price was $32,864.00, and that Complainant paid in excess of that amount. There were no written change orders provided establishing a modification to the contract price. Therefore, Complainant established that Respondent did not complete the project for the price stated in the contract, or in any modification of the contract, in violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(8).

The evidence established that Respondent did not complete the corrective work following the Written Directive being issued notwithstanding the extension provided for compliance, and Respondent acknowledged such. Further, Respondent failed to establish any affirmative defense to establish valid justification for such failure. Therefore, Complainant established that Respondent failed to take appropriate corrective action following a Written Directive from the Registrar in violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22).

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Based on the foregoing, it is recommended that on the effective date of the Order, the Registrar shall suspend Respondent’s License Number 328444 for a period of ten (10) days.

It is further recommended that the Registrar require Respondent to pay the sum of $500.00 as a civil penalty pursuant to A.R.S. § 32-1154(E).

It is further recommended that if Respondent fails to pay the entire amount of the civil penalty on or before thirty (30) days following the effective date of the Registrar’s final order, the Registrar revoke Respondent’s license, effective on such deadline date. No future license shall be issued to any entity consisting of persons associated with Respondent, as defined in A.R.S. § 32-1101(A)(7), unless Respondent tenders payment of any outstanding prior civil penalty.

Pursuant to A.R.S. § 41-1092.08(I), the licensee may accept the Administrative Law Judge Decision by advising the Office of Administrative Hearings in writing not more than ten (10) days after receiving the decision. If the licensee accepts the Administrative Law Judge Decision, the decision shall be certified as the final decision by the Office of Administrative Hearings.

In the event of certification of the Administrative Law Judge Decision by the Director of the Office of Administrative Hearings, the effective date of the Order will be forty (40) days from the date of that certification.

Done this day, June 10, 2025.

/s/ Sondra J. Vanella

Administrative Law Judge

Transmitted by e-mail to:

Tom Cole, Director

Registrar of Contractors

c/o Legal Department

[email redacted]

Robert Di Alto

[email redacted]

Wolff Development, LLC

[email redacted]

Brian DiPietro

[email redacted]

Arturo Alatorre

[email redacted]

By: OAH Staff