ALJDEC - Licensing

2024A-09298-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2025-06-10

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

Paul Miller,

COMPLAINANT,

O-Brock, LLC

License No. ROC 322295,

RESPONDENT.

No. 2024A-09298-CHC-ROC

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION

HEARING: May 23, 2025

APPEARANCES: Complainant Paul Miller appeared on his own behalf. Joshua Brockman appeared on behalf of Respondent O-Brock, LLC. Arizona Registrar of Contractors Investigator Steven Avila appeared as a witness. April Ray was present as an observer.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Sondra J. Vanella

EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: Administrative Notice taken of Agency Record; Complainant Paul Miller’s Exhibits 8, 14

FINDINGS OF FACT

O-Brock, LLC (“Respondent”) is the holder of License Number 322295 issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (“Registrar”).

Paul Miller (“Complainant”) entered into multiple contracts with Respondent commencing in January 2022, the first of which was for the remodel of a casita, which was completed in March 2022. Complainant was pleased with the outcome of that project and subsequently between August 2022, and December 2023, entered into several contracts for the remodel of Complainant’s home. Thereafter, in March 2024, the parties contracted for the remodel of the primary bathroom which was completed in May 2024.

On or about August 15, 2024, the Registrar received a Complaint against Respondent from Complainant alleging that Respondent performed work outside the scope of its license, failed to obtain permitting for the project, overcharged for the work performed, and performed poor work with respect to the project.

The Registrar assigned the Complaint to Investigator Steven Avila. After an October 18, 2024 Jobsite Inspection, at which both parties were present, Investigator Avila issued a Written Directive to Respondent dated November 29, 2024, that provided 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 Friday, December 20, 2024.

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

Complaint Item: 3 - O-Brock executed plumbing, electrical, & gas line modifications, and installed a hardwood floor. He also removed load-bearing walls and replaced them with beams. All of this work appears to be outside the scope of a B-3 license. O-Brock did the work by himself with his employees. He did not use an appropriately licensed subcontractor. I am also not aware if any permits were obtained for any of this work.

Investigator’s Observation: It has been determined that the license carried by the respondent does allowed for contracting of the agreed upon scope. All work that requires the respondent hire sub-contractors should have been subbed out to the appropriately licensed contractors. However, the work has been completed and there is insufficient evidence to determine who performed the work in these areas. A subsequent phone call to Pinal county permitting department, on which I spoke to Ron Delzer - Lead plans examiner, it was confirmed that a permit is required for the scope of work performed in the residence. Items that may require are permit are the removal of wall and installation of beam, plumbing and electrical modifications. Respondent shall provide the full scope of work to the Pinal County permitting department, obtain all required permits and pass all required inspections.

Complaint Item: 4 - the attic insulation was moved for multiple installations, but it was not replaced redistributed.

Investigator’s Observation: At the time of the inspection there were multiple locations within the attic in which the insulation was moved to perform work within the respondent's scope of work. These locations showed that insulation had been moved and not replaced to the locations leaving voids.

Allegation is verified. Respondent shall correct by the appropriate means.

Complaint Item: 6 - poor seal on exterior doors - visible air gaps.

Investigator’s Observation: At the time of the inspection light can be seen between the doors and jam on multiple exterior doors. Workmanship standards state – weather stripping of doors become owner maintenance one year after installation. If the installation occurred within that last year the respondent shall make the appropriate adjustments.

Garage door in the residence had viewable openings at the bottom of the door.

No caulking was present on the exterior of the garage door threshold allowing moisture intrusion.

Exterior door in casita had a corner that hits when closing.

Allegation for multiple items is verified. Respondent shall correct by the appropriate means.

Complaint Item: 7 - Loose shower head

Investigator’s Observation: At the time of the inspection the shower head installed by the respondent was leaking between shower neck and head.

Allegation is verified. Respondent shall correct by the appropriate means.

Complaint Item: 8 - unfinished baseboards & poor finish on door casings

Investigator’s Observation: At the time of the inspection there were multiple locations throughout the residence in which the baseboards and door trim contained had finish issues. Workmanship standards state - All joints on molding, casing, etc., should fit and be securely attached, as well as properly filled and sanded. There were multiple locations in which trim was either poorly or not painted, fasteners could be seen and trim appeared unsecured.

Allegation is verified. Respondent shall correct by the appropriate means.

Complaint Item: 9 - poor caulking at window installation

Investigator’s Observation: At the time of the inspection there were areas throughout the window installation in which the caulking was either omitted or poorly installed. The workmanship issues resulted in voids, gaps and messy appearance.

Allegation is verified. Respondent shall correct by the appropriate means.

Complaint Item: 10 - poor finish on wood doors.

Investigator’s Observation: At the time of the inspection there was a finish variation between the doors installed by the respondent. Some doors appeared sanded and as a result had a very smooth finish. Other doors had a rough unfinished texture. The unfinished doors were present in multiple areas of the residence.

There was also missing stain on various interior doors inside the casita.

There was insufficient evidence at the time of the inspection to determine that the exterior doors did not contain sealant on all six sides. There is no standard for bathroom doors.

Allegation is verified. Respondent shall correct by the appropriate means.

Complaint Item: 11 - instances of poor/no touchup paint - e.g. touchup paint on custom-built wooden shutters

Investigator’s Observation: At the time of the inspection there were multiple issues regarding poorly or unpainted trim and window sills. The areas included paint on window shutters also. There was also an area above the dining room table in which paint variation could be seen between the newly painted repairs and existing paint. Allegation is verified. Respondent shall correct by the appropriate means.

ITEMS NOT REQUIRING CORRECTION

The following complaint items require no action by the Respondent:

Complaint Item: 1 - I verified O-Brock LLC was licensed/bonded before the first contract. The license is now suspended.

Investigator’s Observation: This item is a statement and not a measurable workmanship item. Should a directive be issued the respondent would not be allowed to perform additional work whilst the license is in a suspended state.

Complaint Item: 2 - I believed O-Brock would perform per rules/regulations, but now realize O-Brock had only B-3 license

B-3 license does cover the performed work as long as the appropriate subcontractors were hired to perform needed work.

Complaint Item: 5 - paid $12K to "seal" the hardwood floor: visible areas

with

Investigator’s Observation: At the time of the inspection there were areas in which the flooring showed signs of splintering and other blemishes in the reclaimed wood. Due to the product used, reclaimed wood, the investigator is unable to determine if the issues with splintering are due to the respondent's workmanship or the materials chosen by the homeowners. The sealing of the flooring did contain some blemishes in which variations could be seen in different areas of the flooring. The most notable of the blemishes could be seen in the living area. Allegation for inconsistent finish is verified. Respondent shall work with the homeowner to locate any additional blemishes and correct these areas by the appropriate means.

Complaint Item: 12 - No topcoat on wood doors-especially exterior / bath.

Investigator’s Observation: There was insufficient evidence at the time of the inspection to determine that the exterior doors did not contain sealant on all six sides. There is no standard for bathroom doors. Allegation is not verified.

All errors in original.

On December 23, 2024, Investigator Avila received an email from Complainant informing him that Respondent had not performed any of the required corrective work. Thereafter, Investigator Avila forwarded the Complaint to the Registrar’s Legal Department. The Registrar issued a Citation against Respondent charging possible violations of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(2)(b), A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(a), and A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22).

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

Investigator Avila testified consistently with the findings contained in his Jobsite Inspection notes and the Written Directive. Investigator Avila testified that a permit is required to be obtained and to be present on site prior to the commencement of work and that Respondent should not have started its work on the project prior to the obtaining of the required permit(s). Investigator Avila further testified that all communications from Respondent to Complainant occurred after the expiration of the Written Directive and that after the expiration of the Written Directive, a complainant does not have any legal obligation to allow a contractor to perform corrective work. Investigator Avila further testified that Respondent did not submit any documentation establishing that permit applications were submitted during the period of the Written Directive.

Complainant testified that on February 27, 2025, he met with a representative of the Pinal County Building Department and was informed that there was no record of any permit requests or any contact by Respondent. Thereafter, on May 5, 2025, Complainant requested permit information for his property through the Pinal County Building Department online portal, and received a response that only two permits for his property had been obtained: i) in 2003, the original construction permit; and ii) in 2022, the pool construction permit.

Complainant testified that Respondent did not contact him until December 23, 2024, after the expiration of the Written Directive, and that there was no communication from Respondent during the period of the Written Directive.

Respondent’s representative, Joshua Brockman, acknowledged that there was “poor communication” on his part and he “did not see fit to reach out [to Complainant] while [Complainant] was on vacation.” However, Complainant testified that he was on vacation from October 25, 2024, through December 12, 2024, and during the vacation, he had access to all methods of communication (email, phone, and text). Further, the Written Directive period did not end until December 20, 2024.

Mr. Brockman testified that he could not apply for permits without blueprints and a site plan both of which were unavailable because they were damaged in a fire and flood. Mr. Brockman acknowledged that he should have asked for an extension to comply with the Written Directive. Mr. Brockman testified that he is still willing to perform the work and that he has never had a “permit problem” or “a problem like this.”

Administrative notice is taken of Respondent’s prior License record on June 6, 2025. Such prior License record reflects that Respondent’s License Number 322295 was first issued on October 12, 2018, and is active. Such prior License record also reflects that there is only the instant open Complaint, no resolved/settled complaints, and no complaints resulting in discipline against Respondent’s license.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

This matter lies within the Registrar’s jurisdiction.

Complainant bears 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 failed to obtain a permit for the project, and performed work without a permit. Therefore, Complainant established that Respondent departed from or disregarded a building code in a material respect that was prejudicial to Complainant, in violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(2)(b).

The evidence established that Respondent’s work was not in conformity with the Registrar’s standards. Therefore, Complainant established that Respondent did not complete the project in a professional and workmanlike manner in violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(A).

The undisputed evidence established that Respondent did not complete the corrective work following the Written Directive being issued. Further, Respondent failed to establish any affirmative defense to establish valid justification for such failure. 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 Number 322295 for a period of seven (7) days.

It is further recommended that the Registrar require Respondent to pay the sum of $500.00 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 (30) 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, June 10, 2025.

/s/ Sondra J. Vanella

Administrative Law Judge

Transmitted by e-mail to:

Tom Cole, Director

Registrar of Contractors

c/o Legal Department

[email redacted]

O-Brock, LLC

[email redacted]

Paul Miller

[email redacted]

Steven Avila

[email redacted]

By: OAH Staff