ALJDEC - Licensing

2024A-08596-NPC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2025-05-05

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

Safe Site Utility Services LLC,

COMPLAINANT,

v.

Dynatek Energy Solutions Inc.

License No. ROC 330268,

RESPONDENT.

No. 2024A-08596-NPC-ROC

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION

HEARING: April 14, 2025.

APPEARANCES:

For Complainant: Tara Penny, Crystal Sumner, Jonathan Story.

For Respondent: Failed to appear.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Samuel Fox

EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: Administrative notice was taken of the Notice of Hearing Packet submitted by the Registrar of Contractors.

_____________________________________________________________________

FINDINGS OF FACT

Dynatek Energy Solutions Inc. (Respondent) was the holder of License No. 330268 issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (Registrar) on August 24, 2020.

Safe Site Utility Services LLC (Complainant) performed work for Respondent and submitted invoices to Respondent for at least $37,175.00.

On or about July 24, 2024, Complainant filed a Non-Payment Complaint Form with the Registrar, claiming Respondent had failed to pay those invoices.

On October 16, 2024, the Registrar issued a Citation, alleging that Respondent violated Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) § 32-1154 (A)(10). Respondent timely submitted an Answer on August 23, 2024.

The matter was referred to the Office of Administrative Hearings for an administrative hearing. The Notice of Hearing was issued on November 15, 2024, setting the hearing for December 24, 2025.

The matter was continued to April 14, 2025, when the hearing was held. Although the Order Granting Continuance was sent to Respondent at its contact information of Record, Respondent did not appear at the hearing.

Complainant’s witnesses testified that Complainant completed the work identified in the invoices and that Complainant has not received payments.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

This matter lies within the Registrar’s jurisdiction.

Complainant bore the burden of proof to establish Respondent’s statutory violations by a preponderance of the evidence. Respondent bore the burden of proof to establish an affirmative defense 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.”

A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(10) includes among the grounds for suspension, revocation, or other disciplinary action against a contractor’s license,

[f]ailure by a licensee or agent or official of a licensee to pay monies in excess of $750 when due for materials or services rendered in connection with the licensee's operations as a contractor unless the licensee proves that the licensee lacks the capacity to pay and has not received sufficient monies as payment for the particular construction work project or operation for which the services or materials were rendered or purchased.

Statutes should be interpreted to provide a fair and sensible result and “be liberally construed to effect their objects and to promote justice.”

The purpose of the Registrar’s licensing statutes is to protect the public from unscrupulous, unqualified, and financially irresponsible contractors.

Upon review of the evidence submitted this case, Complainant established that $37,175.00 was “due” for materials or services rendered to Respondent in connection with Respondent’s operations as a licensed contractor.

Respondent failed to appear; accordingly, no evidence was entered in support of any defense they raised in their answer or could have raised at hearing.

The preponderance of the evidence established that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(10) as alleged.

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Based on the foregoing, it is recommended that the Registrar suspend Respondent’s license number 330268 until Respondent has provided the Registrar, and the Registrar has accepted, documents that establish payment to Complainant of $37,175.00. At which time, the Registrar may close the Complaint in the above-entitled matter.

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 5, 2025.

/s/ Samuel Fox

Administrative Law Judge

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

Tom Cole, Director

Registrar of Contractors

Dynatek Energy Solutions Inc.

[email redacted]

Safe Site Utility Services LLC

[email redacted]

[email redacted]

By: OAH Staff