ALJDEC - Licensing

2024A-06339-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2024-10-24

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

Erica McLeod,

COMPLAINANT,

v.

SunUp America, LLC

License Nos. ROC 333266,

325608, 325273,

RESPONDENT.

No. 2024A-06339-CHC-ROC

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION

HEARING: October 15, 2024

APPEARANCES: Complainant Erica McLeod appeared on her own behalf. Respondent SunUp America, LLC did not appear. Arizona Registrar of Contractors Investigator Aaron King appeared as a witness.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Sondra J. Vanella

EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: None; Administrative Notice taken of Agency Record

FINDINGS OF FACT

SunUp America, LLC (“Respondent”) is the holder of License Numbers 333266, 325608, and 325273 issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (“Registrar”).

In or about December 2023, Erica McLeod (“Complainant”) contracted with Respondent for Respondent to install a complete solar system at her home. Complainant took out a loan to pay Respondent in the amount of $49,148.00, and Respondent has been paid in full.

On or about June 4, 2024, the Registrar received a Complaint against Respondent from Complainant essentially alleging abandonment and poor work with respect to the project.

The Registrar assigned the Complaint to Investigator Aaron King. Investigator King conducted a Jobsite Inspection on July 24, 2024. Investigator King’s Jobsite Inspection Notes set forth the following:

Complaint Item: - Solar panels were installed and I am paying, but they were never connected. SunUp never completed the job.

Investigator’s Observation: The solar panels were installed, and a Tesla battery is installed as well. The Complainant informed me that the Respondent has not completed the work and the solar panels and battery are not hooked up to the homes electricity. The Complainant also informed me that SRP is waiting for design approval and has requested corrections on May 21, 22, 29 and June 13th. Without design approval the Complainant cannot get the inspection by the city. The Complainant provided evidence of the Application Corrections Required for Application # SRP-73483 noting that on June 13, 2024, SRP was still in need of corrections. The inspection verified that work was started and the job was abandoned. The Respondent's license is now revoked and he can do no corrective work.

Thereafter, Investigator King forwarded the matter to the Registrar’s Legal Department. The Registrar issued a Citation against Respondent charging a possible violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(1).

Respondent filed a timely Answer to the Citation and the Registrar referred the matter to the Office of Administrative Hearings, an independent State agency, for an evidentiary hearing.

On August 21, 2024, the Registrar issued a Notice of Hearing to the parties advising of the hearing date and time of October 15, 2024, at 1:00 p.m., and further advised that an Order providing a Google Meet link would be issued to the parties by the Office of Administrative Hearings. On August 22, 2024, the Tribunal issued to the parties an Order Setting Hearing Via Google Meet. That Order contained the Google Meet link to join the hearing by video or by telephone. It was issued to Respondent’s email addresses of record.

Respondent did not appear through an authorized member, employee, or attorney. Respondent did not request that the hearing be continued. Because Respondent failed to appear, Respondent did not present any evidence to defend its license.

Investigator King testified consistently with his findings contained in his Jobsite Inspection Notes. Investigator King testified that he notified Respondent of the Jobsite Inspection by mail, email, and telephone call. Investigator King testified that the scope of Respondent’s work is not complete and that it had been several months since Respondent had last performed work on the project. Investigator King did not issue a Written Directive to Respondent because Respondent’s licenses are revoked.

Complainant agreed with Investigator King’s findings and testimony. Complainant testified that Respondent has been paid in full and she is paying on the loan. Complainant testified that the solar panels remain inoperable. Complainant testified that she believes Respondent is operating under another license.

Administrative notice is taken of Respondent’s prior License record on October 24, 2024. Such prior License record reflects that Respondent’s License Number 333266 was first issued on May 6, 2021, and is revoked. Such prior License record also reflects that there are seven (7) open complaints, not including the instant Complaint, one resolved/settled complaint, and eight (8) complaints resulting in discipline against Respondent’s license.

Such prior License record further reflects that Respondent’s License Number 325608 was first issued on July 26, 2019, and is revoked. Such prior License record reflects that there are is only one open complaint, however, it is not the instant case number, so there are at least two open complaints, no resolved/settled complaints, and five (5) complaints resulting in discipline against this license.

Such prior License record further reflects that Respondent’s License Number 325273 was first issued on July 9, 2019, and is revoked. Such prior License record reflects that there are six (6) open complaints, however, the instant Complaint is not included in that number, so there are at least seven (7) open complaints, no resolved/settled complaints, and nine (9) complaints resulting in discipline against this license.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

This matter lies within the Registrar’s jurisdiction.

Complainant bears the burden of proof to establish Respondent’s statutory violation 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.”

The evidence established that Respondent abandoned its contract with Complainant without legal excuse for doing so. Therefore, Complainant established that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(1).

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Based on the foregoing, it is recommended that on the effective date of the Order, the Registrar shall revoke Respondent’s License Numbers 333266, 325608, and 325273.

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 24, 2024.

/s/ Sondra J. Vanella

Administrative Law Judge

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

Tom Cole, Director

Registrar of Contractors

[email redacted]

SunUp America, LLC

[email redacted]

[email redacted]

Erica McLeod

[email redacted]

Aaron King

[email redacted]

By: OAH Staff