ALJDEC - Licensing
2024A-05722-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2024-10-31
IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
Aaron Gullerud,
COMPLAINANT
v.
360 Masonry & Hardscapes LLC
License No. ROC 338918,
RESPONDENT
No. 2024A-05722-CHC-ROC
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION
HEARING: October 16, 2024
APPEARANCES: Complainant Aaron Gullerud appeared via Google Meet on his own behalf. Registrar of Contractors Investigator Lisa Melton appeared via Google Meet.
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Adam D. Stone
EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE:
_____________________________________________________________________
FINDINGS OF FACT
360 Masonry & Hardscapes LLC. (Respondent) is the holder of License No. 338918 issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (Registrar).
On or about December 14, 2023, Aaron Gullerud (Complainant) agreed to have Respondent construct a retaining wall and install pavers at his home in Peoria, Arizona. The contracted amount was $20,262.00, and Complainant paid $10,000.00.
On or about May 19, 2024, the Registrar received a Complaint against Respondent from Complainant alleging poor work with respect to project.
The Registrar assigned the complaint to Investigator Lisa Melton. The jobsite inspection was performed on August 2, 2024.
On August 5, 2024, the Registrar issued a Citation against Respondent, charging possible violations of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(1).
On or about August 19, 2024, Respondent e-mailed an Answer to the Registrar.
On or about August 28, 2024, a Notice of Hearing was issued setting a hearing on October 9, 2024, at the Office of Administrative Hearings, an independent state agency. A copy of the Notice of Hearing and the Order Setting Google Meet was mailed and e-mailed to Respondent’s addresses of record.
At hearing, Investigator Melton testified as to the Registrar’s involvement and the above timeline.
Investigator Melton testified that Mr. Santizo called her and informed her that he had been fired from the project, however, Investigator Melton did not find that the information proved that he had been fired.
Further, Investigator Melton testified that Respondent had not completed the scope of work by April 2023, and that the work which was completed was incorrect.
Finally, Investigator Melton testified as of July 29, 2024, Respondent’s license was revoked.
Complainant testified that Respondent was never fired and never offered a full refund of the monies he paid.
In addition, Complainant testified that in early March 2024, he requested from Respondent a completion date, and was told the work would be completed by March 30, 2024. Complainant testified that he gave Respondent the month of April as a grace period, yet the work was not completed, so he filed his complaint.
Although the start of the hearing was delayed approximately 15 minutes, Respondent did not appear through an authorized member, employee, or attorney. Further, Respondent did not request that the hearing be continued. Consequently, Respondent did not present any evidence to defend its license.
Administrative notice was taken of Respondent’s prior License record on October 31, 2024. Such prior License record reflected that Respondent’s License No. 338918 was first issued on June 21, 2022, and was revoked on July 29, 2024. The license record also reflected that there were two open cases, one of which was the present complaint and two ”disciplined cases”.
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 preponderance of the evidence established that Respondent abandoned the project in violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(1). Respondent accepted Complainant’s down payment of $10,000.00 and did not finish the wall nor install the pavers. Further, there was no evidence presented, credible or otherwise, to demonstrate that Respondent had a valid legal excuse for not completing the work.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Based on the foregoing, it is recommended that on the effective date of the Order, the Registrar shall revoke Respondent’s License No. 330073.
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 31, 2024.
/s/ Adam D. Stone
Administrative Law Judge
Transmitted by either mail, e-mail, or facsimile to:
Tom Cole, Director
Registrar of Contractors
360 Masonry & Hardscapes LLC
[email redacted]
Aaron Gullerud
[email redacted]
By: OAH Staff