2024A-04656-CHC-ROC Notice of Hearing & Packet MAILED 2024-04656.pdf

2024A-04656-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2024-10-07

REGISTRAR OF CONTRACTORS OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA

Jeffrey H Neises , Case No. 2024-04656

COMPLAINANT, Docket No. 2024A-04656-CHC-ROC

v. NOTICE OF HEARING ON CONTESTED CASE Pierson and White Builders Inc. DBA: Bradleybuilt Construction License No. ROC 216761,

RESPONDENT.

This Notice of Hearing is issued under A.R.S. § 41-1092.05(D).

HEARING INFORMATION The hearing is set for:

November 18, 2024 1:00 PM Sondra Vanella 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 July 11, 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)(8)

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 October 7, 2024.

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

Copy mailed via USPS First Class mail October 7, 2024 to:

Respondent(s) Pierson and White Builders Inc. DBA: Bradleybuilt Construction 4040 E Grove Cir Mesa, AZ 85206

Complainant(s) Jeffrey H Neises 2276 E Desert Cove Ave Phoenix, AZ 85028

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. 2024-04656 /

Hearing Packet FAQ What is the The Hearing Packet is a packet of certain documents collected or Hearing Packet? issued by the Registrar over the course of its investigation. Who gets the The Hearing Packet is assembled and distributed to all parties and Hearing Packet? to the Office of Administrative Hearings (“OAH”) prior to an administrative hearing. What types of The Registrar prepares a Hearing Packet for Complainant-Handled cases does the Cases and No-Pay Cases. Note: If the Docket Number on the Registrar prepare a Notice of Hearing contains a “CHC” or “NPC”, your case is a Hearing Packet for? Complainant-Handled Case or a No-Pay Case. What is in the The Hearing Packet contains essential case-specific documents and Hearing Packet? at a minimum will include the following documents: ● Original complaint; ● 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 If there is any evidence you submitted to the Registrar that are not documents missing included in the Hearing Packet it is your responsibility to introduce from the Hearing that evidence at the administrative hearing. Note: The Packet? 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

How do I disclose You must properly disclose any and all documents and witnesses evidence I intend to you intend to use at your hearing according to the Registrar’s use at a Hearing? 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 If you previously submitted documents to the Registrar and need a documents I copy of these documents, please contact the Registrar’s Legal previously submitted Department or submit a public records request at to the Registrar? 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: Jeffrey H Neises 2276 E Desert Cove Ave Phoenix, AZ 85028

1700 W. Washington Street, Suite 105 · Phoenix AZ 85007-2812 602.542.1525 · Toll Free 877.692.9762 · roc.az.gov C008 12/23 Respondent: Pierson and White Builders Inc DBA: Bradleybuilt Construction 4040 E Grove Cir Mesa, AZ 85206

1700 W. Washington Street, Suite 105 · Phoenix AZ 85007-2812 602.542.1525 · Toll Free 877.692.9762 · roc.az.gov C008 12/23 April 29, 2024

Re: Complaint No. 2024-04656

Dear Complainant and Respondent:

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

A jobsite inspection is scheduled for Thursday, May 23, 2024 at 10:30 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 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, Robert Di Alto Robert Di Alto, Investigator 602 7716758 [email redacted] 1700 W Washington St, Suite 105 Phoenix, AZ 85007

Cc: File

1700 W. Washington Street, Suite 105 · Phoenix AZ 85007-2812 602.542.1525 · Toll Free 877.692.9762 · roc.az.gov C008 12/23 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 1700 W. Washington Street, Suite 105 · Phoenix AZ 85007-2812 602.542.1525 · Toll Free 877.692.9762 · roc.az.gov C008 12/23 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 12/23 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 1700 W. Washington Street, Suite 105 · Phoenix AZ 85007-2812 602.542.1525 · Toll Free 877.692.9762 · roc.az.gov C008 12/23 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 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 12/23 Complaint #2024-04656 P 1 JSI date 05/23/2024 at 10:30 AM JSI PHOTOS Complaint #2024-04656 P 2 JSI date 05/23/2024 at 10:30 AM JSI PHOTOS Complaint #2024-04656 P 3 JSI date 05/23/2024 at 10:30 AM JSI PHOTOS Complaint #2024-04656 P 4 JSI date 05/23/2024 at 10:30 AM JSI PHOTOS Complaint #2024-04656 P 5 JSI date 05/23/2024 at 10:30 AM JSI PHOTOS Complaint #2024-04656 P 6 JSI date 05/23/2024 at 10:30 AM JSI PHOTOS Complaint #2024-04656 P 7 JSI date 05/23/2024 at 10:30 AM JSI PHOTOS Complaint #2024-04656 P 8 JSI date 05/23/2024 at 10:30 AM JSI PHOTOS Complaint #2024-04656 P 9 JSI date 05/23/2024 at 10:30 AM JSI PHOTOS Complaint #2024-04656 P 10 JSI date 05/23/2024 at 10:30 AM JSI PHOTOS Complaint #2024-04656 P 11 JSI date 05/23/2024 at 10:30 AM JSI PHOTOS Complaint #2024-04656 P 12 JSI date 05/23/2024 at 10:30 AM JSI PHOTOS Complaint #2024-04656 P 13 JSI date 05/23/2024 at 10:30 AM JSI PHOTOS Complaint #2024-04656 P 14 JSI date 05/23/2024 at 10:30 AM JSI PHOTOS Complaint #2024-04656 P 15 JSI date 05/23/2024 at 10:30 AM JSI PHOTOS Complaint #2024-04656 P 16 JSI date 05/23/2024 at 10:30 AM JSI PHOTOS Complaint #2024-04656 P 17 JSI date 05/23/2024 at 10:30 AM JSI PHOTOS Complaint #2024-04656 P 18 JSI date 05/23/2024 at 10:30 AM JSI PHOTOS Complaint #2024-04656 P 19 JSI date 05/23/2024 at 10:30 AM JSI PHOTOS Complaint #2024-04656 P 20 JSI date 05/23/2024 at 10:30 AM JSI PHOTOS Complaint #2024-04656 P 21 JSI date 05/23/2024 at 10:30 AM JSI PHOTOS Complaint #2024-04656 P 22 JSI date 05/23/2024 at 10:30 AM JSI PHOTOS Complaint #2024-04656 P 23 JSI date 05/23/2024 at 10:30 AM JSI PHOTOS Complaint #2024-04656 P 24 JSI date 05/23/2024 at 10:30 AM JSI PHOTOS Complaint #2024-04656 P 25 JSI date 05/23/2024 at 10:30 AM JSI PHOTOS Complaint #2024-04656 P 26 JSI date 05/23/2024 at 10:30 AM JSI PHOTOS Complainant: Jeffrey H Neises 2276 E Desert Cove Ave Phoenix, AZ 85028

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: Pierson and White Builders Inc DBA: Bradleybuilt Construction 4040 E Grove Cir Mesa, AZ 85206

1700 W. Washington Street, Suite 105 · Phoenix AZ 85007-2812 602.542.1525 · Toll Free 877.692.9762 · roc.az.gov C009 12/23 June 14, 2024

License No. ROC 216761

Re:Complaint No. 2024-04656

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 July 5th, 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:

Complaint Item: 2 - Patio pavers: lights, bullnose, sanding, replace broken pavers and readjust height of sunken pavers. Investigator’s Observation: Verified. The step lights were not installed at the time of this inspection. There are no provisions for bull nosing at the steps in the Complainant’s agreement. No further action required by the Respondent on this specific item. I observed broken pavers around the brass clean out covers at the front porch area. I also saw pavers at this location and in the entrance way that appear to have more than 1/8" elevation deviations creating a tripping hazard. The Respondent shall correct by the appropriate means. Governing Rule: Workmanship Rule: ARS §32-1154 (A) (3), namely R4-9-108, Poor work not performed in accordance with professional industry standards. 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 Complaint Item: 3 - Repaint house above stonework. Investigator’s Observation: Verified. I observed visible gray mortar at the top of the stone veneer and on the surface of the stucco, exhibiting sloppy and inconsistent transition between the two surface finishes. The Respondent shall correct by the appropriate means. Governing Rule: Workmanship Rule: ARS §32-1154 (A) (3), namely R4-9-108, Poor work not performed in accordance with professional industry standards.

Complaint Item: 4 - Stone veneer on front of house - wrong color, unacceptable workmanship, stone caps missing Investigator’s Observation: Verified. The Complainant and Respondent acknowledged that the stone caps were not installed at the porch columns and that the complaint item needed to be completed. I observed stone veneer wainscoting that exhibited several pieces with cracks, exposed edges, abrasions, and visible gray mortar. The areas observed appeared to be poorly installed and not to professional industry standards. Cut and shaped edges were not hidden and/or covered by grout. Cracked stone veneer pieces were installed and readily visible. The Respondent shall correct by the appropriate means. Governing Rule: Workmanship Rule: ARS §32-1154 (A) (3), namely R4-9-108, Poor work not performed in accordance with professional industry standards.

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

Complaint Item: 1 - Finish landscaping by neighbor's retaining wall. Investigator’s Observation: Unverified. Complaint item had been completed/corrected prior to this JSI. No further action required by the Respondent. Governing Rule: Not Applicable

Complaint Item: 5 - Wrong Garage doors were installed Investigator’s Observation: Unverified. Complaint item does not constitute poor workmanship, and meets minimum workmanship standards. There is insufficient evidence to determine if the wrong doors were installed. No further action required by the Respondent. Governing Rule: Not Applicable

1700 W. Washington Street, Suite 105 · Phoenix AZ 85007-2812 602.542.1525 · Toll Free 877.692.9762 · roc.az.gov C009 12/23 Complaint Item: 6 - Concrete curbing in garage never finished Investigator’s Observation: Unverified. Complaint item had been completed/corrected prior to this JSI. No further action required by the Respondent. Governing Rule: Not Applicable

Complaint Item: 7 - Cleanout cover not installed for guest Investigator’s Observation: Unverified. Complaint item had been completed/corrected prior to this JSI. No further action required by the Respondent. Governing Rule: Not Applicable

Complaint Item: 8 - A/C in garage condensate line leaks Investigator’s Observation: Unverified. Complaint item had been completed/corrected prior to this JSI. No further action required by the Respondent. Governing Rule: Not Applicable

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

Sincerely,

Robert Di Alto, Investigator #228 (602) 771-6758 [email redacted] 1700 W Washington St, Suite 105 Phoenix, AZ 85007

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

Case No.: 2024-04656 Investigator: Compliance Holder Inspection Date: Thursday, May 23, 2024 Inspection Time: 10:30 AM

Jobsite Address: 2276 E Desert Cove Ave Phoenix, AZ 85028

Complainant: Jeffrey H Neises Respondent: Pierson and White Not Present: Builders Inc Not Present:

Jobsite General Notes: JSI photos taken with my Google Pixel Phone camera. JSI audio recorded with my Olympus Digital Voice Recorder model DM-720. JSI photos and audio have been placed into the ROC complaint file.

Complaint Item: 3 - Repaint house above stonework. Investigator’s Observation: Verified. I observed visible gray mortar at the top of the stone veneer and on the surface of the stucco, exhibiting sloppy and inconsistent 1700 W. Washington Street, Suite 105 · Phoenix AZ 85007-2812 602.542.1525 · Toll Free 877.692.9762 · roc.az.gov C011 12/23

transition between the two surface finishes. The Respondent shall correct by the appropriate means. Governing Rule: Workmanship Rule: ARS §32-1154 (A) (3), namely R4-9-108, Poor work not performed in accordance with professional industry standards.

Complaint Item: 6 - Concrete curbing in garage never finished Investigator’s Observation: Unverified. Complaint item had been completed/corrected prior to this JSI. No further action required by the Respondent. Governing Rule: Not Applicable

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

REGISTRAR OF CONTRACTORS OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA

Jeffrey H. Neises, Case No. 2024-04656 COMPLAINANT, v. Pierson and White Builders Inc., CITATION DBA: Bradleybuilt Construction License No. ROC 216761,

RESPONDENT.

The Registrar issues this Citation to Pierson and White Builders Inc., DBA:

Bradleybuilt Construction (“Respondent”) under A.R.S. § 32-1155(A). If Respondent fails

to answer this Citation by July 26, 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 April 23, 2024, Jeffrey H. Neises (“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.

of 6

1700 W. Washington Street, Suite 105 · Phoenix AZ 85007-2812 602.542.1525 · Toll Free 877.692.9762 · roc.az.gov Lg101 8/21 Charge: 2 A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(8) 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.

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. 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: 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: 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

of 6

1700 W. Washington Street, Suite 105 · Phoenix AZ 85007-2812 602.542.1525 · Toll Free 877.692.9762 · roc.az.gov Lg101 8/21 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. 2024-04656. How to File a Written Answer: Respondent’s written answer may be submitted in the following ways: 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 July 26, 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).

of 6

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

of 6

1700 W. Washington Street, Suite 105 · Phoenix AZ 85007-2812 602.542.1525 · Toll Free 877.692.9762 · roc.az.gov Lg101 8/21 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 constitute proof that Respondent violated any statutory provision or rule adopted by the Registrar. Dated July 11, 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, July 11, 2024 to: Respondent Certified Mail No: [number redacted] Pierson and White Builders Inc. DBA: Bradleybuilt Construction 4040 E Grove Cir Mesa, AZ 85206-3209 Copy mailed by USPS First Class mail this same date to: Respondent Pierson and White Builders Inc. DBA: Bradleybuilt Construction 4040 E Grove Cir Mesa, AZ 85206-3209

Complainant Jeffrey H. Neises 2276 E Desert Cove Ave Phoenix, AZ 85028

of 6

1700 W. Washington Street, Suite 105 · Phoenix AZ 85007-2812 602.542.1525 · Toll Free 877.692.9762 · roc.az.gov Lg101 8/21 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. 2024-04656 / <<CreatedBy_Initials>

of 6

1700 W. Washington Street, Suite 105 · Phoenix AZ 85007-2812 602.542.1525 · Toll Free 877.692.9762 · roc.az.gov Lg101 8/21 Received 7/26/24, 7:52 AM State of Arizona Mail - Case No.2024-04656 7/25/2024 ROC Legal

Answers - AZROC <[email redacted]>

Case No.2024-04656 message

Bradley White <[email redacted]> Thu, Jul 25, 2024 at 4:05 PM To: [email redacted]

Citation and Complaint No. ___________ Jeff and JoAnne Neises v. Bradleybuilt Construction

Written answer to Citation and Complaint and Motion to Dismiss

This letter responds to the complaint of Jeff and JoAnne Neises. I have attached correspondence and documentation showing the dynamics of the project and my continued desire to resolve any and all issues with the homeowners. I am a general contractor. I have been in this industry for 40 plus years. Most of which has been in the high-end custom home business. I have an impeccable history with the registrar of contractors. I have never had a complaint. I take pride in pleasing my customers. At no point have I argued or refused to do any of the items requested by the homeowners. As the communications attached demonstrate, I have tried to amicably work through their frustrations and concerns but have been prevented from doing so as they refuse to provide me access to the property. In September of 2022 the Neises and I began to have discussions about completion of the remodel/addition relating to performance concerns with one of my subcontractors. He is a licensed bonded and insured contractor in good standing with the State. Several time schedules and milestones were not met due to this one subcontractor. I understand the frustrations of the Neises over the delay and kept in communication with them about the situation. I never avoided any calls, text or emails. We met on a very regular basis. When the struggle to get my subcontractor to follow through worsened I met with Jeff and JoAnne and offered to bring in another landscape contractor. (Attached is the proposal) I got a quote and sat down with them and offered this as a solution. I explained that I had talked to the subcontractor that I had originally contracted with and explained to him that I would pay out his progress and let someone else finish the work. They said they talked it over with each other (Jeff and JoAnne) and felt like they should stay with the original guy. I stressed that I had concerns about him being able to follow through. ( attached is that email conversation) Jeff and JoAnne have another home in Wisconsin and spend most of the summers there. They were adamant that I could only work on their property when they were in town. This prevented me from doing any work at the property during most of the summer months.

JoAnne said she had people coming to visit and needed the job completed. Again, dates were set and not met. They told me that they wanted to hire someone else to do the rest of the work. I explained that I had to allow him to finish as I had a contract that didn't have conditions. I offered to have a meeting with the State Registrar through the Building with Confidence program. That meeting was arranged and we had a meeting with Dan Edwards On Jan 10, 2023. He walked the job and looked at the items of concern. He had a few comments and said that he would review and make comments on what was expected. Dan Edwards told Jeff (Homeowner) that his comments would be no different than if they filed a formal complaint. He also explained to Jeff that he had to allow us to make corrections and couldn't tell us how to do it. This is all in the comments from Dan Edwards. At the end of January my wife was hospitalized with a terminal disease of which she passed away 3 months later in May. I'm sure this had some impact on my performance but I continued to work and communicate with all of my clients. I met with them and explained what was going on and assured them I would still press the job to completion. In addition, Jeff and JoAnne had their own personal issues that delayed the project. https://mail.google.com/mail/b/AEoRXRQGtR3nV35TmKaL6pCi8gnDV5CY2AhppIcVjNYaBChS-gdl/u/0/?ik=581c53cf5c&view=pt&search=all&permthi… 1/3 Received 7/26/24, 7:52 AM State of Arizona Mail - Case No.2024-04656 7/25/2024 They were married, went on a honeymoon and her father passed away . I reached out ROC Legal after they returned from their honeymoon and Jeff said that they filed a formal complaint. Attached is the response from Jeff when they returned. I again assured him I was more than willing to finish. It's important to note that the only time we were allowed to work was when they were home. All of this work was outside in the front of the house. We did not need to be in the house or even the backyard. He commented to me that he did not even want us on his sidewalk. This posed an issue with scheduling the work When It came time to do the final landscaping in the backyard I told them that they could contract with Jason (the original contractor)which would save them my 15% fee. They hired him and paid him in full. This is the same contractor they said they couldn't trust to do a good job on the front. The items that are in question today relate to work of the same subcontractor. When the registrar inspector Robert Alito came to inspect the job on May 23, 2024, a new list was made by Jeff and JoAnne. There were items that were never mentioned to me. They were small issues and I took care of those in a couple of days. The rest Robert said he would rule on. At this time, I again offered to fix whatever Robert said needed to be fixed. Robert asked if I would do items that were not part of that contract he asked for and I said I would if Jeff dropped the complaint. Jeff said no. He wanted to file a formal complaint. I received the letter stating his ruling on June 14, 2024. I responded to all parties saying that I received the notice and that I had notified my subcontractor and that we would take care of it as soon as possible. I stated that I needed to order a few items and would call as soon as they came in. On July 11, 2024I

texted Jeff and JoAnne that I had what we needed and when was a good time to come. He sent me an email that I was cited for not being completed in time. In his note he said that he had come into town from Wisconsin and no work was done. In the note from the inspector, he said that It was important to work together to complete. I stated that I needed some parts and that I would contact him. He came into town and did not mention he was coming. It is obvious that he was counting days. He was not interested in getting this done. Getting in to finish this job has been very difficult. He made it clear that we could not be near the job unless he was there. I tried scheduling several times but it was always bad timing for when they were away. He has landscapers who weekly take care of his yard. He has pool people who take care of his pool. All of the work that needs to be done requires no access. There is no history of theft or any reason other than he feels like he has to watch every move. I offered to hire someone new. They insisted on using the very contractor about which they are complaining. Robert Alito Said to me that had I finished that this wouldn't be happening. I stated that we were not allowed to finish. I was on time to every meeting. I said over and over that I am happy to finish. I wanted them to be happy. I had mentioned that I had a clean record. That I had never had a complaint because I take care of my customers. My record stands for itself. I have certainly had disagreements and issues but I always take care of them. I This citation and complaint is inappropriate on several grounds. The citation alleges three violations, each violation is addressed in turn. ARS 32-1154(A)(3) and AAC R4-9-108. This section refers to violation of any rule adopted by the registrar and the cited Rule to workmanship standards. The corrective work order did not specify that any work failed to meet workmanship standards or reference the standards that were not met. It is impossible for a contractor to correct work when the standards that were not met are not referenced. ARS 32-1154(8) addresses the failure of a licenses to complete a construction project or operation for the price stated in the contract, or in any modification of the contract. That is not the case here. As addressed below and in the attachments, I have always been willing to complete or perform any necessary warranty work on the project. The corrective work ordered has a cost of less than $2,000. The homeowners have withheld approximately $17,000 from me. Because the corrective work could be completed for the contract price there is no basis for the issuance of the citation on this basis. ARS 32-1154(22) – Failure to take appropriate corrective action “without valid justification within a reasonable time after receiving a written directive from the registrar.” The citation is in appropriate as I immediately advised that I will comply with the corrective work order and arranged for the ordering of the necessary materials to do so. have always been willing to make the repairs required in a reasonable time. With

the need to order materials and schedule with out of state homeowners, 15 days was not a reasonable time. The corrective work order advises that the homeowner and https://mail.google.com/mail/b/AEoRXRQGtR3nV35TmKaL6pCi8gnDV5CY2AhppIcVjNYaBChS-gdl/u/0/?ik=581c53cf5c&view=pt&search=all&permthi… 2/3 Received 7/26/24, 7:52 AM State of Arizona Mail - Case No.2024-04656 7/25/2024 contractor must work together to schedule. At no time during the 15- day period did the ROC Legal homeowner advise that we had the right to access the property to do the work. Had we been advised that we were granted access the work would have been done. Notwithstanding my request to dismiss the citation and complaint, please note that I have the materials necessary to do the work and look forward to completing the work as soon as possible upon being provided with access to the property. In the event this motion is denied, I request an evidentiary hearing. Please see attached paperwork. attached are photos showing some of my work. Also included are communications and letters from registrar and proposal from replacement contractor as mentioned in my letter. Sincerely: Bradley White

-- BRADLEYBUILT CONSTRUCTION residential & commercial BRADLEY WHITE CELL: 602.421.4558 FAX: 877.533.0485 EMAIL: [email redacted] / [email redacted] ROC# 216761

Neises complaint backup.pdf 5839K

https://mail.google.com/mail/b/AEoRXRQGtR3nV35TmKaL6pCi8gnDV5CY2AhppIcVjNYaBChS-gdl/u/0/?ik=581c53cf5c&view=pt&search=all&permthi… 3/3 Received 7/25/2024 ROC Legal Received 7/25/2024 ROC Legal Received 7/25/2024 ROC Legal Received 7/25/2024 ROC Legal Received 7/25/2024 ROC Legal Received 7/25/2024 ROC Legal Received 7/25/2024 ROC Legal Received 7/25/2024 ROC Legal Received 7/25/2024 ROC Legal Received 7/25/2024 ROC Legal Received 7/25/2024 ROC Legal Received 7/25/2024 ROC Legal Received 7/25/2024 ROC Legal Received 7/25/2024 ROC Legal Received 7/25/2024 ROC Legal Received 7/25/2024 ROC Legal Received 7/25/2024 ROC Legal Received 7/25/2024 ROC Legal Received 7/25/2024 ROC Legal Received 7/25/2024 ROC Legal Received 7/25/2024 ROC Legal Received 7/25/2024 ROC Legal Received 7/25/2024 ROC Legal Received 7/25/2024 ROC Legal REGISTRAR OF CONTRACTORS OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA

Jeffrey H Neises, Case No. 2024-04656 COMPLAINANT, v. Pierson and White Builders Inc ORDER DENYING REQUEST TO DBA: Bradleybuilt Construction , DISMISS License No. ROC 216761, RESPONDENT.

BACKGROUND On July 11, 2024 the Registrar issued a citation against Respondent’s License No. ROC 216761. Respondent filed its Answer on July 25, 2024 The Answer included a request to dismiss the citation and close the complaint. ORDER IT IS ORDERED that Respondent’s request to dismiss is DENIED. The issues underlying the Citation and Complaint are best suited for presentation before the Office of Administrative Hearings. Respondent is free to raise the arguments and defenses presented in its request to dismiss before the administrative law judge. A Notice of Hearing will be issued in due course. Dated September 18, 2024. By: /s/ Robert Stirling Robert Stirling Assistant General Counsel Legal Department Arizona Registrar of Contractors

of 2 REGISTRAR OF CONTRACTORS 1700 W. Washington St.– Ste. 105 – Phoenix, AZ 85007-2812 Telephone (602)542-1525 Toll Free (877)692-9762 Lg127 5/21 Copy mailed via USPS First Class mail September 18, 2024 to: Respondent(s) Pierson and White Builders Inc DBA: Bradleybuilt Construction 4040 E Grove Cir Mesa, AZ 85206 Complainant(s) Jeffrey H Neises 2276 E Desert Cove Ave Phoenix, AZ 85028 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. 2024-04656/ MTH

of 2 REGISTRAR OF CONTRACTORS 1700 W. Washington St.– Ste. 105 – Phoenix, AZ 85007-2812 Telephone (602)542-1525 Toll Free (877)692-9762 Lg127 5/21 9/20/24, 8:12 AM State of Arizona Mail - Case No.2024-04656

Answers - AZROC <[email redacted]>

Case No.2024-04656 message

Bradley White <[email redacted]> Thu, Sep 19, 2024 at 5:05 PM To: [email redacted]

Written answer to Citation and Complaint This is a response to the complaint from Jeff and JoAnne Neises. I will provide some correspondence and documentation showing the dynamic of the project and my continued desire to resolve any and all issues from the homeowners. I am a general contractor. I have been in this industry for 40 plus years. Most of which has been in the high end custom home business. I have an impeccable history with the registrar of contractors. I have never had a complaint. I take pride in pleasing my customers. At no point have I argued or denied to do any of the items requested. I have tried to amicably work through frustrations and concerns. I will attach communications and history leading to this complaint. Sometime in September of 2022 we began to have discussion for completion of the remodel/addition we were having performance concerns with one of my sub contractors. He is a licensed bonded and insured contractor in good standing with the state. Several times schedules were made and milestones not met. I could certainly understand the frustrations. I kept in communication with my customer. I never avoided any calls, text or emails. We met on a very regular basis. When the struggle to get my sub contractor to follow through worsened I met with Jeff and JoAnne and offered to bring in another landscape contractor. (Attached is the proposal) I got a quote and sat down with them and offered this as a solution. I explained that I had talked to the sub that I had originally contracted with and explained to him that I would pay out his progress and let someone else finish. They said they talked it over with each other (Jeff and JoAnne) and felt like they should stay with the original guy. I stressed that I had concerns about him being able to follow through. (I have attached the email conversation) Jeff and JoAnne have another home in Wisconsin and spend most of the summers there. They were adamant on allowing work only when they were in town. JoAnne said she had people coming to visit and needed the job completed. Again dates were set and not met. They told me that they wanted to hire someone else to do the rest of the work. I explained that I had to allow him to finish as I had a contract that didn't have conditions. I offered to have a meeting with the state registrar called the Building with Confidence program. That meeting was arranged and we had a meeting with Dan Edwards On Jan 10, 2023. He walked the job and looked at the items of concern. He had a few comments and said that he would review and make comments on what was expected. He told Jeff (Homeowner) that what his comments would be would be no different than if they filed a formal complaint. He also explained to Jeff that he had to allow us to make corrections and couldn't tell us how to do it. This is all in the comments from Dan Edwards. At the end of January my wife was hospitalised with a terminal disease of which she passed away 3 months later in May. I'm sure this had some impact on my performance but I continued to work and communicate with all of my clients. I met with them and explained what was going on and assured them I would still press the job to completion. In addition Jeff and JoAnne were married, went on a honeymoon and her father passed away . I reached out after they returned from their honeymoon and He said that they filed a formal complaint. I have attached the response from Jeff when they returned. I again assured him I was more than willing to finish. It's important to note that the only time we were allowed work was when they were home. All of this work was outside in the front. We did not need to be in the house or even the backyard. He commented to me that He did not even want us on his sidewalk. Already this poses an issue with everyone's schedules working. When It came time to do the final landscaping in the backyard I told them that they could contract with Jason (the original contractor) and would save them my 15% fee. They hired him and paid him in full. This is the same contractor they said they couldn't trust to do a good job. Today the items that are in question are all that same subcontractor. When the registrar inspector Robert Alito came to inspect the job on May 23rd 2024 a new list was made from Jeff and JoAnne. There were items that were never mentioned. I took care of those in a couple days. Very small issues. The rest Robert said he would rule on. At this time I again offered to fix whatever he needed. Robert asked if I would do items that were not part of that contract he asked for and I said I would if he would drop the complaint. Jeff said no. He wanted to file a formal complaint. I received the letter stating his ruling on June 14th 2024. I responded to all parties saying that I received the notice and that I had notified my subcontractor and that we would take care of it as soon as possible. I stated that I needed to order a few items and would call as soon as they came in. On July 11 I texted Jeff and JoAnne that I had what we needed and when was a good time to come. He sent me an email that I was cited for not being completed in time. In his note he said that he had come into town from Wisconsin and no work was done. In the note from the inspector he said that It was important to work together to complete. I stated that I needed some parts and that I would contact him. He came into town and did not mention he was coming. It is obvious that he was counting days. He was not interested in getting this done. Getting in to finish this job has been very difficult. He made it clear that we https://mail.google.com/mail/b/AEoRXRQN4twBpHqbEzt7Zbri50tXexFntT2oBbi_M4bZk4Fvyuzq/u/0/?ik=581c53cf5c&view=pt&search=all&permthid=t… 1/2 9/20/24, 8:12 AM State of Arizona Mail - Case No.2024-04656 could not be near the job unless he was there. I tried scheduling several times but it was always bad timing for when they were away. He has Landscapers who weekly take care of his yard. He has pool people who take care of his pool. All of the work that needs to be done requires no access. There is no history of theft or any reason other than he feels like he has to watch every move. I offered to hire someone new. They insisted on using the very contractor that they are complaining about. Robert Alito Said to me that had I finished that this wouldn't be happening. I stated that we were not allowed to finish. I was on time to every meeting. I said over and over that I am happy to finish. I wanted them to be happy. I had mentioned that I had a clean record. That I had never had a complaint because I take care of my customers. My record stands for itself. I have certainly had disagreements and issues but I always take care of them. I have been counseled to motion for dismissal. This should have never been filed as I have always been willing to make things right. We were not allowed to be on the property to do so. Sincerely: Bradley White Please see attached paperwork.

-- BRADLEYBUILT CONSTRUCTION residential & commercial BRADLEY WHITE CELL: 602.421.4558 EMAIL: [email redacted] / [email redacted] ROC# 216761

https://mail.google.com/mail/b/AEoRXRQN4twBpHqbEzt7Zbri50tXexFntT2oBbi_M4bZk4Fvyuzq/u/0/?ik=581c53cf5c&view=pt&search=all&permthid=t… 2/2 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