ALJDEC - Licensing

2024A-05765-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2025-05-29

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

Frank Beck,

COMPLAINANT

v.

AZ Grind and Coat LLC,

License No. ROC 329883,

RESPONDENT

No. 2024A-05765-CHC-ROC

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION

HEARING: May 14, 2025

APPEARANCES: Complainant Frank Beck appeared via Google Meet on his own behalf. Andrew Schweda appeared via Google Meet on behalf of Respondent AZ Grind and Coat LLC. Registrar of Contractors Investigator Robert Di Alto appeared via Google Meet.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Adam D. Stone

EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE:

______________________________________________________________________

FINDINGS OF FACT

AZ Grind and Coat LLC (Respondent) is the holder of License No. 329883 issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (Registrar).

On or about October 24, 2023, the parties entered into a contract for a coating system at Complainant’s place of business in Scottsdale, Arizona.

On or about May 20, 2024, the Registrar received a Complaint against Respondent from Complainant alleging poor work with respect to project.

The Registrar assigned the complaint to Investigator Robert Di Alto. The jobsite inspection was performed on June 25, 2024.

Investigator Di Alto then issued a Written Directive on or about July 2, 2024, which provided in pertinent part 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 07/19/2024.

. . .

DIRECTIVE REQUIREMENTS

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

Complaint Item: 1- Coating is bubbling.

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. I observed an epoxy surfaced floor in the mechanic’s area of the building. There are readily visible bubbles in the finished floor surface that are excessive throughout the areas observed during this jobsite inspection. When a Respondent decides a substrate is acceptable/suitable for installation, the Respondent is required to warranty their workmanship for two years from the date of completion. 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...

On March 19, 2025, the Registrar issued a Citation against Respondent, charging possible violations of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(A); and A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22).

On or about March 24, 2025, Respondent submitted an Answer to the Registrar.

On or about April 1, 2025, a Notice of Hearing was issued setting a hearing on May 14, 2025, at the Office of Administrative Hearings, an independent state agency.

At hearing, Investigator Di Alto testified as to the Registrar’s involvement and the above timeline and findings.

Investigator Di Alto testified that the Directive was extended two times with a final completion date of October 20, 2024.

Further, Investigator Di Alto testified that on October 22, 2024, Complainant informed him that he was willing to work with Respondent on a resolution, and to close the complaint. However, on March 5, 2025, Complainant contacted Investigator Di Alto informing him there was no resolution and to re-open the complaint.

Investigator Di Alto testified that he re-opened the complaint and issued a citation, but did not conduct another jobsite investigation.

As to the issues with the workmanship, Investigator Di Alto testified that there were excessive issues throughout the entire floor.

Complainant’s testimony echoed that of Investigator Di Alto, but added that while Respondent had tested a small area for a solution, that solution was not acceptable to Complainant and was not the product he contracted for.

Mr. Schweda testified that all tests were within the normal range for application of the product, but he hypothesized that there was an ASR problem along with moisture which created the issue.

Administrative notice was taken of Respondent’s prior License record on May 29, 2025. Such prior License record reflected that Respondent’s License No. 329883 was first issued on July 24, 2020, and reflected that there was one open cases, namely the present case.

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 there was a violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(A), as the work performed was not completed in a workmanlike manner because there were visible areas of excessive bubbling throughout the areas of the flooring.

Finally, the preponderance of the evidence established Respondent failed 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. 329883 for one day.

It is further recommended that the Registrar require Respondent to pay the sum of $100.00 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)(7), unless Respondent tenders payment of any outstanding prior civil penalty.

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

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

Done this day, May 29, 2025.

/s/ Adam D. Stone

Administrative Law Judge

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

Tom Cole, Director

Registrar of Contractors

Frank Beck

[email redacted]

AZ Grind and Coat LLC

[email redacted]

By: OAH Staff