ALJDEC - Licensing

2024A-04297-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2024-10-15

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

Rebecca Juarez,

COMPLAINANT

Five Star Remodeling & Demo LLC

License No. ROC 345231

RESPONDENT

No. 2024A-04297-CHC-ROC

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION

HEARING: September 24, 2024

APPEARANCES: Complainant Rebecca Juarez appeared on her own behalf. Apolo Tranca, Owner and Qualifying Party, appeared on behalf of Respondent Five Star Remodeling & Demo LLC.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Tammy L. Eigenheer

EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: Administrative Notice was taken of the Hearing Packet submitted by the Registrar of Contractors. Complainant’s Exhibits 1 through 30. Respondent’s Exhibits A through G.

_____________________________________________________________________

FINDINGS OF FACT

Fives Star Remodeling & Demo LLC (Respondent) is the holder of License No. 345231 issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (Registrar).

On or about February 29, 2024, Rebeca Juarez (Complainant) entered into a contract with Respondent for a remodeling project at her home in Sun City, Arizona.

On or about April 12, 2024, the Registrar received a Complaint against Respondent from Complainant alleging poor work with respect to the project.

The Registrar assigned the complaint to Investigator John Chester. After a jobsite inspection, Investigator Chester issued a written directive to Respondent that provided as follows:

After investigation, the Registrar determined that you failed to meet the requirements of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A), and now issues this Directive requiring you to take appropriate corrective action. Failure to comply with this Directive constitutes a violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22) and may result in the issuance of a citation, discipline of your license, and a civil penalty pursuant to A.R.S. § 32-1154(E) of up to $500.00. You must notify the Registrar’s assigned Investigator of your compliance with this Directive prior to 5:00 p.m. on Wednesday, June 12, 2024.

. . . .

DIRECTIVE REQUIREMENTS

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

Complaint Item 1: - Miguel, a non-licensed electrician performed electrical work throughout my home for Five Start Remodeling & Demo.

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. The Respondent will need to correct this by the appropriate means, using an appropriately licensed contractor.

. . . .

Complaint Item 3: - Miguel the electrician made several major holes/cuts in garage, connected GFI to wall switch.

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. The Respondent will need to correct this by the appropriate means, using an appropriately licensed contractor.

. . . .

Complaint Item 4: - Miguel the electrician in attic many times, insulation fell from vent in master bath, damage in attic?

Investigator’s Observation: At time of inspection the respondent acknowledged that they would make sure the attic was not damage. Respondent to fix any issues by appropriate means.

. . . .

Complaint Item 5: - Miguel the electrician installed a 90 degree wall edge installed in error. His fix left a rounded edge misaligned

Investigator’s Observation: At time of inspection the wall edge needs to be trimmed back for base to be installed, respondent to correct by appropriate means

. . . .

Complaint Item 6: - George Tranca recommended pocket door to go in wall. I bought door. ROC plans to install in sheer wall, no engineering

Investigator’s Observation: At time of inspection the pocket door has been changed to a normal door, respondent will need to install by appropriate means.

. . . .

Complaint Item 11: - Handicap shower/tile installed w/poor workmanship causing redo portions 2 and 3 times AFTER I raised issues

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. The Respondent will need to correct this by the appropriate means, using an appropriately licensed contractor.

. . . .

Complaint Item 12: - Shower install so bad, Alex had shower install demolished. Spicket, valve, drain still misaligned at 2x4 stage now.

Investigator’s Observation: Respondent shall complete project per original contract agreement, properly executed change orders, verbal agreements, local building codes and manufacturers installation instructions.

. . . .

Complaint Item 13: - 2 x 4 studs sliced in several places & were covered up w/1st shower install where ADA grab bars are to go in shower

. . . .

Complaint Item 14: - Both shower foundation removal, plumbing, shower install by non licensed worker, without any oversight by Company

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. The Respondent will need to correct this by the appropriate means, using an appropriately licensed contractor.

. . . .

Complaint Item 16: - Just learned permits ARE required. Alex lied at quote & at start saying not needed. I have demanded permits.

Investigator’s Observation: The Respondent will obtain a permit, correct any deficiencies required by the county/city, and pass final permit inspection.

. . . .

Complaint Item 17: - Alex says he submitted request & no plans were needed despite wall demolition, plumbing, electrical, etc.

. . . .

Complaint Item 19: - Door bell opposite of rewired switches & AC thermostat by Miguel is now short circuiting, ringing sporadically. Mentioned to Alex who heard door bell ring sporadically when he was here, but no action, ignored concern

. . . .

Complaint Item 21: - Workers put up plastic using 3M Duck tape on ceiling wall has peeled paint off ceiling outside of remodel.

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. The Respondent will need to correct this by the appropriate means.

. . . .

Complaint Item 23: - Alex has aided and abetted non licensed individuals to illegally do work in my home. Bathroom is uninhabitable.

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. The Respondent will need to correct this by the appropriate means, using an appropriately licensed contractor.

. . . .

Complaint Item 25: - Miguel the electrician installed 15 lights, several switches, GFI outlets, fan outlets, thermostat, breaker

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. The Respondent will need to correct this by the appropriate means, using an appropriately licensed contractor.

On or about June 12, 2024, Investigator Chester issued a second written directive from the Registrar that extended the due date for compliance to July 5, 2024.

Following the issuance of the written directive, Respondent applied for the required permit, but failed to pay the associated fees. After the deadline in the directive expired, Investigator Chester was notified no corrective work had been performed.

The Registrar issued a Citation against Respondent, charging possible violations of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(C); and A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22).

Investigator Chester testified that had Respondent obtained the permit, the deadline for compliance would have been extended. Investigator Chester also noted that, prior to the directive, Mr. Tranca indicated he had a planned vacation with no return trip scheduled. Investigator Chester advised Mr. Tranca that the corrective work still needed to be completed, and that anyone working on the project needed to be a licensed contractor.

Complainant testified that between the date of the jobsite inspection and September 10, 2024, she had no contact from Respondent.

Mr. Tranca admitted that he did not perform any corrective work on the project after the directive was issued. Mr. Tranca maintained that he intended to complete the project, but his mother was hospitalized while he was overseas and he was unable to perform work on the project.

Administrative notice is taken of Respondent’s prior License record on October 14, 2024. Such prior License record reflects that Respondent’s License No. 345231 was first issued on May 25, 2023, and is active. Such prior License record also reflects that there were two open complaints and no prior complaints 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.”

No evidence was presented to establish that Sun City, Arizona had not adopted building codes. Rather, the fact that Respondent applied for a permit implied that Sun City, Arizona had building codes. Therefore, Complainant failed to establish that Respondent acted in violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(C).

The evidence established that Respondent did not attempt to complete the corrective work following the Directive being issued. 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 No. 345231 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 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)(5), unless Respondent tenders payment of any outstanding prior civil penalty.

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

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

Done this day, October 15, 2024.

/s/ Tammy L. Eigenheer

Administrative Law Judge

Transmitted by either mail, e-mail, or facsimile to:

Tom Cole, Director

Registrar of Contractors

Five Star Remodeling & Demo LLC

[email redacted]

Joey Chester

[email redacted]

Rebecca Juarez

[email redacted]

By: OAH Staff