ALJDEC - Licensing

2024A-06458-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2025-01-24

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

Tiffany Richardson,

COMPLAINANT

v.

The Dee E Company LLC

License No. ROC 344206,

RESPONDENT

No. 2024A-06458-CHC-ROC

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION

HEARING: January 10, 2025

APPEARANCES: Complainant Tiffany and Landyn Richardson appeared on their own behalf via Google Meet. Darcell Ealy appeared on behalf of Respondent via Google Meet. Registrar of Contractors Investigator Gregory Johndrow appeared via Google Meet.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Adam D. Stone

EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: Respondent’s Exhibits 1 – 11 were admitted.

_____________________________________________________________________

FINDINGS OF FACT

The Dee E Company LLC (Respondent) is the holder of License No. 344206 issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (Registrar).

On or about January 15, 2024, Complainant hired Respondent to remodel portions of the interior of her home in Tucson, Arizona.

On or about June 17, 2024, the Registrar received a Complaint against Respondent from Complainant alleging poor work with respect to project.

The Registrar assigned the complaint to Investigator Gregory Johndrow. The jobsite inspection was performed on September 5, 2024.

Investigator Johndrow then issued a Written Directive on or about September 27, 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 Tuesday, October 15, 2024.

...

DIRECTIVE REQUIREMENTS

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

Complaint Item 1: “Paint imperfections throughout home”

Investigator’s Observations: Verified.

The new paint does not blend with the existing color.

The conditions were pointed out by the complainant in the living room, den, upstairs hallway, primary bedroom and bathroom.

Governing Rule: A.R.S. § 32-1154 (A)(3) - R4-9-108(a): Violation of any rule adopted by the registrar; Namely R 4-9-108(a) A contractor shall perform work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

Complaint Item 2: “Gap in flooring between bedroom and bathroom”

Investigator’s Observations: Verified.

The new flooring installed in the primary bathroom was not installed under the transition molding at the doorway into the bathroom. There is a gap between the molding and the new floor.

Governing Rule: A.R.S. § 32-1154 (A)(3) - R4-9-108(a): Violation of any rule adopted by the registrar; Namely R 4-9-108(a) A contractor shall perform work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

Complaint Item 3: “Raw materials exposed”

Investigator’s Observations: Verified.

The drywall was poorly finished, on the right hand side, outside of the shower door. The bullnose corner metal is exposed and has an unsightly finish.

Governing Rule: A.R.S. § 32-1154 (A)(3) - R4-9-108(a): Violation of any rule adopted by the registrar; Namely R 4-9-108(a) A contractor shall perform work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

Complaint Item 4: “Sloppy caulking/finish in and around shower, leaving it prone to mold and future leaks”

Investigator’s Observations: Verified.

The caulking work performed throughout the entire primary bathroom is poorly applied and unsightly in appearance.

Governing Rule: A.R.S. § 32-1154 (A)(3) - R4-9-108(a): Violation of any rule adopted by the registrar; Namely R 4-9-108(a) A contractor shall perform work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

Complaint Item 5: “Closet flooring (inside bathroom) was not replaced to match new flooring”

Investigator’s Observations: Verified.

The new flooring installed in the primary bathroom was not installed into the connected linen closed.

Governing Rule: A.R.S. § 32-1154 (A)(3) - R4-9-108(a): Violation of any rule adopted by the registrar; Namely R 4-9-108(a) A contractor shall perform work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

Complaint Item 6: “Crack in the shower ledge”

Investigator’s Observations: Verified.

The new cultured marble wall cap, installed on the pony wall between the shower and the tub, does not extend the full length of the wall and a piece of the old wall cap was used to make up the difference. The two materials do not match and the current condition is unsightly in appearance. The current condition does not meet industry standards.

Governing Rule: A.R.S. § 32-1154 (A)(3) - R4-9-108(a): Violation of any rule adopted by the registrar; Namely R 4-9-108(a) A contractor shall perform work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

Complaint Item 7: “Gaps in moulding where baseboards should be flush with the floor”

Investigator’s Observations: Verified.

The new flooring was installed with large and small gaps observed around the entire perimeter of the room and around the cabinetry. The current conditions do not meet industry standards.

Governing Rule: A.R.S. § 32-1154 (A)(3) - R4-9-108(a): Violation of any rule adopted by the registrar; Namely R 4-9-108(a) A contractor shall perform work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

Complaint Item 8: “Missing parts of baseboard throughout bathroom”

Investigator’s Observations: Verified.

The baseboards installed on the side of the vanity cabinet, at the tub and around the toilet do not meet industry standards. The baseboards have gaps, poorly mitered corners and do not line up with other sections of the baseboards.

Governing Rule: A.R.S. § 32-1154 (A)(3) - R4-9-108(a): Violation of any rule adopted by the registrar; Namely R 4-9-108(a) A contractor shall perform work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

Complaint Item 9: “Mystery lining around base of toilet”

Investigator’s Observations: Verified.

A piece of unknown flexible trim has been used to cover the incorrectly installed flooring, around the base of the toilet. The condition has an unsightly appearance and does not meet industry standards.

Governing Rule: A.R.S. § 32-1154 (A)(3) - R4-9-108(a): Violation of any rule adopted by the registrar; Namely R 4-9-108(a) A contractor shall perform work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

Complaint Item 10: “Drywall dust/mess throughout the home”

Investigator’s Observations: Verified.

Construction dust was observed throughout the upstairs and downstairs.

Governing Rule: A.R.S. § 32-1154 (A)(3) - R4-9-108(a): Violation of any rule adopted by the registrar; Namely R 4-9-108(a) A contractor shall perform work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

Addendum Complaint Item 1: “uneven/jagged alignment of baseboards and flooring around the perimeter of the bathroom”

Investigator’s Observations: Verified.

The new flooring was installed with large and small gaps observed around the entire perimeter of the room and around the cabinetry. The current conditions do not meet industry standards.

Governing Rule: A.R.S. § 32-1154 (A)(3) - R4-9-108(a): Violation of any rule adopted by the registrar; Namely R 4-9-108(a) A contractor shall perform work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

Addendum Complaint Item 2: “poor caulking around the shower”

Investigator’s Observations: Verified.

The caulking work performed around the shower and throughout the entire primary bathroom is poorly applied and unsightly in appearance.

Governing Rule: A.R.S. § 32-1154 (A)(3) - R4-9-108(a): Violation of any rule adopted by the registrar; Namely R 4-9-108(a) A contractor shall perform work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

Addendum Complaint Item 3: “residue on the newly installed shower door”

Investigator’s Observations: Verified.

The shower door has an unknown residue on the glass.

Governing Rule: A.R.S. § 32-1154 (A)(3) - R4-9-108(a): Violation of any rule adopted by the registrar; Namely R 4-9-108(a) A contractor shall perform work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

Addendum Complaint Item 4: “uneven flooring beneath the vanity/sink”

Investigator’s Observations: Verified.

The installed flooring along the toe kick of the vanity cabinet is separated and lifting apart.

Governing Rule: A.R.S. § 32-1154 (A)(3) - R4-9-108(a): Violation of any rule adopted by the registrar; Namely R 4-9-108(a) A contractor shall perform work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

Addendum Complaint Item 5: “wall between shower and bath is not at 90 degrees”

Investigator’s Observations: Verified.

The wall on the right hand side, outside of the shower door is not square from the corner where it returns back to the tub.

Governing Rule: A.R.S. § 32-1154 (A)(3) - R4-9-108(a): Violation of any rule adopted by the registrar; Namely R 4-9-108(a) A contractor shall perform work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

Addendum Complaint Item 6: “drywall dust throughout the home, especially on blinds, kitchen appliances and flooring”

Investigator’s Observations: Verified.

Construction dust was observed in the described locations.

Governing Rule: A.R.S. § 32-1154 (A)(3) - R4-9-108(a): Violation of any rule adopted by the registrar; Namely R 4-9-108(a) A contractor shall perform work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

Addendum Complaint Item 7: “residue on flooring in back room downstairs”

Investigator’s Observations: Verified.

Tape and its adhesive residue was observed on the flooring in this location.

Governing Rule: A.R.S. § 32-1154 (A)(3) - R4-9-108(a): Violation of any rule adopted by the registrar; Namely R 4-9-108(a) A contractor shall perform work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

Addendum Complaint Item 8: “stump of shower protrudes past wall”

(Complainant’s description of the finished tile outside of the shower curb)

Investigator’s Observations: Verified.

The tile protrudes beyond the wall line and is not finished or trimmed out on the edges.

Governing Rule: A.R.S. § 32-1154 (A)(3) - R4-9-108(a): Violation of any rule adopted by the registrar; Namely R 4-9-108(a) A contractor shall perform work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

Addendum Complaint Item 9: “unmatched flooring in the bathroom closet”

Investigator’s Observations: Verified.

The new flooring installed in the primary bathroom was not installed into the connected linen closed.

Governing Rule: A.R.S. § 32-1154 (A)(3) - R4-9-108(a): Violation of any rule adopted by the registrar; Namely R 4-9-108(a) A contractor shall perform work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

Addendum Complaint Item 10: “paint imperfections on ceiling downstairs and poor caulking around AC vent”

Investigator’s Observations: Verified.

A completely different color paint was used on the ceiling patchwork and the ceiling mounted air register was not installed flush to the ceiling.

Governing Rule: A.R.S. § 32-1154 (A)(3) - R4-9-108(a): Violation of any rule adopted by the registrar; Namely R 4-9-108(a) A contractor shall perform work in a professional and workmanlike manner...

(All errors contained in the original).

On October 17, 2024, 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); A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(12), namely A.R.S. § 32-1158; A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(16); and A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22).

On or about October 30, 2024, Respondent submitted an Answer to the Registrar.

On or about November 19, 2024, a Notice of Hearing was issued setting a hearing on December 26, 2024, at the Office of Administrative Hearings, an independent state agency.

After a continuance, the hearing was held on January 10, 2025.

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

Investigator Johndrow testified that Respondent’s representative failed to appear at the jobsite inspection and failed to complete the work as required by the Written Directive.

In addition, Investigator Johndrow testified that he made himself available on a specific day for Mr. Ealy to discuss the matter with him, but Mr. Ealy never reached out on that day.

Further, Investigator Johndrow testified that he issued two warning letters to Respondent. The first was for failure to provide a contract to Complainant, and the second was contracting beyond the scope of its license. Investigator Johndrow testified that Respondent had a R62 license which only allowed him to charge up to $5,000.00, but in this matter, he was paid over $13,000.00.

Complainant testified that prior to filing the complaint she allowed many opportunities for Respondent to complete the job but it was never accomplished.

In addition, Complainant testified that Mr. Ealy sent a text message on September 11, 2024, but she did not respond to the same, instead wanted him to go through Investigator Johndrow for communication. However, Complainant testified that once the Written Directive was issued, Mr. Ealy never communicated with her to schedule a time for the repairs.

Mr. Ealy testified that he was never allowed to finish the job and never again attempted communication with Complainant because Complainant never responded to his September 11, 2024 message.

Further, Mr. Ealy testified that Investigator Johndrow never communicated with him about the project.

Administrative notice was taken of Respondent’s prior License record on January 24, 2025. Such prior License record reflected that Respondent’s License No. 344206 was first issued on April 4, 2023, and reflected that there was one open case, 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 Respondent’s work was not within workmanship standards in violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(A).

The preponderance of the evidence established that Complainant never received a valid contract in violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(12), namely A.R.S. § 32-1158.

The preponderance of the evidence established that Respondent knowingly performed and charged for work which was beyond the scope of its license in violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(16).

Finally, the preponderance of the evidence established Respondent failed to fully complete the corrective work following the Directive being issued. Mr. Ealy admitted that there were no attempts made to contact Complainant once the Directive was issued, therefore, Complainant established that Respondent failed to take appropriate corrective action following a written directive from the Registrar without valid justification 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. 344206 for a period of three days.

It is further recommended that the Registrar require Respondent to pay the sum of $400.00 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.

It is further recommended that within thirty days following the effective date of the Registrar’s final order, Respondent provide an sample contract to the Registrar which complies with A.R.S. § 32-1158. Should Respondent fail to do so, it is recommended that Respondent’s license remains suspended until full compliance with the same.

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, January 24, 2025.

/s/ Adam D. Stone

Administrative Law Judge

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

Tom Cole, Director

Registrar of Contractors

Tiffany Stinson

[email redacted]

The Dee E Company LLC

[email redacted]

By: OAH Staff