ALJDEC - Licensing
2024A-06780-CHC-ROC-RHG · Registrar of Contractors · 2024-12-10
IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
Donna Lea Caldwell,
Janice Alice Abdo, and
Peter Anthony Abdo, Sr.,
COMPLAINANTS
v.
Cal-Pro Roofing LLC
License No. ROC 306666,
RESPONDENT
No. 2024A-06780-CHC-ROC
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION
HEARING: October 18, 2024
APPEARANCES: Donna Lea Caldwell appeared on her own behalf. Respondent Cal-Pro Roofing LLC did not appear.
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Tammy L. Eigenheer
EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: Administrative Notice was taken of the Hearing Packet submitted by the Registrar of Contractors. Complainant’s Exhibits 1 through 19.
_____________________________________________________________________
FINDINGS OF FACT
Cal-Pro Roofing LLC (Respondent) is the holder of License No. 306666 issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (Registrar).
On or about July 26, 2023, Donna Lea Caldwell entered into a contract with Respondent for a roof replacement. Respondent was paid $17,848.68 from Ms. Caldwell’s insurance company for the project.
On or about June 13, 2024, the Registrar received a Complaint against Respondent from Ms. Caldwell alleging abandonment with respect to the project.
The Registrar assigned the complaint to Investigator James Carter. After a jobsite inspection, Investigator Carter determined that Respondent had abandoned the project. Because Respondent’s license was revoked at the time of the jobsite inspection, Investigator Carter forwarded the matter to legal.
The Registrar issued a Citation against Respondent, charging possible violations of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(1).
The Registrar referred the matter to the Office of Administrative Hearings, an independent state agency, for an evidentiary hearing.
The Registrar issued a Notice of Hearing, setting a hearing at 1:00 p.m. on August 26, 2024. The Registrar mailed copies of the Notice of Hearing to Respondent at its address and email address of record.
The hearing was ultimately continued to 1:00 p.m. on October 18, 2024. An October 9, 2024 order from the Office of Administrative Hearings advised the parties of the new hearing date and time and provided instructions regarding how to connect to the hearing via Google Meet.
The hearing was held via Google Meet on October 18, 2024.
Respondent did not request that the hearing be continued. Although the start of the hearing was delayed 15 minutes, Respondent did not appear through an authorized member, employee, or attorney. Consequently, Respondent did not present any evidence to defend its license.
Investigator Carter testified that Respondent did not file an answer to the notice of complaint. Investigator Carter noted that a representative for Respondent was present during the jobsite inspection. That representative acknowledged that Respondent received and cashed the check from Ms. Caldwell’s insurance company. Investigator Carter observed no work had been done on the project.
Ms. Caldwell testified that Respondent performed no work on the project.
On or about October 25, 2024, one week after the hearing convened and concluded, Respondent submitted an email that provided, in pertinent part, “we kindly request a new hearing date, due to personal and medical treatment I was out of the country.”
Respondent’s request to have the hearing reset, having failed to provide good cause for missing the hearing and/or requesting a continuance prior to the hearing, is denied.
Administrative notice is taken of Respondent’s prior License record on December 10, 2024. Such prior License record reflects that Respondent’s License No. 306666 was first issued on July 29, 2016, and was revoked on February 6, 2024. Such prior License record also reflects that there were no other open complaints, one resolved/settled complaint, and three prior complaints resulting in discipline against Respondent’s license.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
This matter lies within the Registrar’s jurisdiction.
The copies of the Notice of Hearing that the Registrar mailed to Respondent at its address and email address of record were reasonable and Respondent is deemed to have received notice of the hearing.
Respondent’s revoked license does not deprive Complainants of their right to prosecute their complaint or prevent the Registrar from determining the merits of the complaint.
Complainants bear the burden of proof to establish Respondent’s statutory violations 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 submitted a bid for Complainants’ project and did not perform the work in the bid. Accordingly, Complainants established that Respondent abandoned the contract and failed to complete the project in a professional and workmanlike manner in violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 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 No. 306666.
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, December 10, 2024.
/s/ Tammy L. Eigenheer
Administrative Law Judge
Transmitted by either mail, e-mail, or facsimile to:
Tom Cole, Director
Registrar of Contractors
Donna Lea Caldwell
[email redacted]
Cal-Pro Roofing LLC
[email redacted]
James Carter
[email redacted]
By: OAH Staff