ALJDEC - Licensing

2024A-04821-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2024-09-19

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

Tom Lewis,

COMPLAINANT

v.

Integrity Steel Company LLC

DBA: Integrity Steel Co

License No. ROC 336643,

RESPONDENT

No. 2024A-04821-CHC-ROC

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION

HEARING: August 30, 2024

APPEARANCES: Complainant Tom Lewis appeared on his own behalf. Nicholas Lammers, Owner and Qualifying Party, appeared on behalf of Respondent Integrity Steel Company LLC doing business as Integrity Steel Co.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Tammy L. Eigenheer

EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: Administrative Notice was taken of the Hearing Packet submitted by the Registrar of Contractors.

_____________________________________________________________________

FINDINGS OF FACT

Integrity Steel Company LLC doing business as Integrity Steel Co. (Respondent) is the holder of License No. 336643 issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (Registrar).

On or about August 30, 2023, Tom Lewis (Complainant) entered into a contract with Respondent for, among other things, the construction of a 40’ x 40’ steel structure.

On or about April 26, 2024, the Registrar received a Complaint against Respondent from Complainant alleging abandonment with respect to the project.

The Registrar assigned the complaint to Investigator Doug Barrett. After a jobsite inspection, Investigator Barrett 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 5, 2024.

. . . .

DIRECTIVE REQUIREMENTS

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

Compliance Item: 1 - Summarized: Contracted for a steel building and all that was completed was a concrete slab.

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. I observed a concrete slab in the rear yard with anchor bolts at the perimeter. I did not see any materials on site to construct a steel building. Contractor should complete the project per the contract by appropriate means and per the local building official.

Governing Rule: Violation of any rule adopted by the Registrar;

Namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(a): A contractor shall perform all work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

Following the issuance of the written directive, Respondent did not perform any additional work. After the deadline in the directive expired, Investigator Barrett 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)(1) and A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22).

Investigator Barrett testified as to his observations during the jobsite inspection.

Complainant testified that he entered into the contract on August 30, 2023, and paid a deposit of $33,129.25. Complainant stated that the first real work performed on the project was on March 26, 2024. Complainant stated the concrete pad was poured on April 5, 2024, and he paid an additional $18,496.96 at that time. Complainant indicated no further work had been performed on the project. Complainant stated he asked Respondent to have the materials delivered to the jobsite so they would be there when the project was ready to proceed, but Respondent failed to do so.

Mr. Lammers acknowledged that the project was not complete. Mr. Lammers stated that there were storage fees due to the company because the materials were not delivered to the jobsite when they were ready.

Administrative notice is taken of Respondent’s prior License record on September 19, 2024. Such prior License record reflects that Respondent’s License No. 336643 was first issued on February 11, 2022, and is active. Such prior License record also reflects that there were five open complaints and two resolved/settled complaints against Respondent’s license.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

This matter lies within the Registrar’s jurisdiction. See A.R.S. § 32-1101 et seq.

Complainant bears the burden of proof to establish Respondent’s statutory violations by a preponderance of the evidence. See A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2); A.A.C. R2-19-119(A) and A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1); see also Vazzano v. Superior Court, 74 Ariz. 369, 372, 249 P.2d 837 (1952). “A preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.” Morris K. Udall, Arizona Law of Evidence § 5 (1960).

The evidence established that Respondent entered into a contract for Complainant’s project and did not perform the work in the contract. Accordingly, Complainant established that Respondent abandoned the contract in violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(1).

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. 336643 for a period of five 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, September 19, 2024.

/s/ Tammy L. Eigenheer

Administrative Law Judge

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

Tom Cole, Director

Registrar of Contractors

Doug Barrett

[email redacted]

Integrity Steel Company LLC

DBA: Integrity Steel Co,

[email redacted]

Tom Lewis

[email redacted]

By: OAH Staff