ALJDEC - Licensing

2024A-09425-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2025-03-18

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

SAAS ONE LLC

COMPLAINANT,

v.

Tucson Remodeling, LLC

License No. ROC 332869,

RESPONDENT.

No. 2024A-09425-CHC-ROC

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION

HEARING: February 26, 2025

APPEARANCES: Salwa Abdel-Aziz appeared on behalf of SAAS ONE LLC (hereinafter (“Complainant”). Chris Moya appeared on behalf of Tucson Remodeling, LLC (hereinafter “Respondent”).

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Velva Moses-Thompson

EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: Complainant’s Exhibits 1 through 6.

_____________________________________________________________________

FINDINGS OF FACT

Respondent holds CR-61 Carpentry, Remodeling, and Repairs license number 332869 issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (hereinafter “ROC” or “Registrar”).

Salwa Abdel-Aziz Aziz owns Complainant.

Chris Moya is Respondent’s qualifying party.

On May 27, 2024, Respondent agreed to remodel two residences in Complainant’s townhouse style building, for the amount of $36,244.65. Respondent provided proposals for the work that included electrical and plumbing work.

Respondent did not provide Complainant with a written contract that included the name and address of the property owner, the estimated date of completion of the work, contact information for the Registrar, the signatures of the parties, and information regarding Complainant’s right to file a complaint with the Registrar.

Complainant paid respondent $21,385.00 pursuant to the agreement.

On or about June 4, 2024, Respondent started work.

On or about August 14, 2024, Respondent stopped work.

On or about August 18, 2024, the Registrar received a complaint from Complainant alleging abandonment on the part of Respondent.

The Registrar assigned the complaint to one of its investigators, John Smith (hereinafter “Investigator Smith”).

On October 2, 2024. Investigator Smith conducted an initial job-site inspection. Ms. Aziz and Mr. Moya were present for the inspection. Investigator Smith discovered that Respondent did not complete the job. Investigator Smith verified that Respondent performed poor work and abandonment. Investigator Smith verified that Respondent did not provide Complainant with a contract that satisfied the requirements of Arizona Revised Statutes, (hereinafter “A.R.S.”), § 32-1158(A), Respondent did not obtain permits for the project, and that Respondent contracted beyond the scope of its license. At the initial job-site inspection, Mr. Moya admitted that he removed the water heaters in both units and the pipes were capped.

12. On October 3, 2024, the Registrar issued a Directive requiring that Respondent correct Complaint Items 1 and 2, by appropriate means, no later than October 27, 2024. Furthermore, through the Directive, the Registrar required that Respondent obtain all necessary permits from the local building official and satisfy

all requirements of the local building official.

13. Respondent did not comply with the Directive by October 27, 2024.

14. On October 30, 2024, the Registrar issued a Citation against Respondent’s license alleging that he violated A.R.S. §§ 32-1154(A) (1), (2) (b), (3), (12) (16) and (22); A.R.S. § 32-1158; Arizona Administrative Code (hereinafter “A.A.C.”) R4-9-108(A) and (B).

15. Respondent filed a timely answer to the Citation.

16. The matter was referred to the Office of Administrative Hearings for an evidentiary hearing.

17. A hearing was held on February 26, 2025.

18. At hearing, Ms. Aziz, Angela Harmsen, Renata Mejia, and Charles Szmutco testified on behalf of Complainant. Mr. Moya testified on behalf of Respondent. Investigator Hammons testified consistently with his initial job-site inspection notes.

19. Ms. Aziz agreed with the findings of Investigator Hammons.

Ms. Aziz explained that Respondent did not finish the job. Ms. Aziz stated that she filed a complaint with the Better Business Bureau regarding Complainant’s work. Mr. Moya refused to perform additional work.

20. Ms. Harmsen is the property manager for the residential units that are the subject of the ROC complaint. Ms. Harmsen stated that Mr. Moya told her that his wife took all of his money out of his account and that he did not have enough money to finish the job.

21. Mr. Moya explained that he became overwhelmed with the timeframes for the job. Mr. Moya stated that he stopped working on the two units to work on another unit at Ms. Aziz’s request. Mr. Moya stated that agreed to finish each unit in 2 weeks. Mr. Moya explained that he recommended specific additions to the contract after he opened the drywall and noticed additional problems. Mr. Moya contended that he provided Complainant with a written change order. However, there were no written change orders provided at hearing regarding the additions. Mr. Moya stated that he completed over 50% of the required work in unit 54 and less than 50% of the work in unit 52.

22. Administrative notice is taken of the Registrar’s public website. According to the information available on the website on March 18, 2025, Respondent’s license was first issued on April 2, 2021, and is active. Such prior License record also shows that there is only one open complaint against Respondent and no other disciplinary history. The lack of prior discipline taken is considered a mitigating factor in imposing discipline.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

This matter lies within the Registrar’s jurisdiction. See Ariz. Rev. Stat. sections 32-1101 et seq.

Complainant bears the burden of proof to establish Respondent’s statutory violation 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 Vazanno 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 shows that Respondent abandoned the

project, which is a violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(1).

The preponderance of the evidence shows that Respondent did not

obtain the required permits for the project, which is a violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(2)(b).

The preponderance of the evidence shows that Respondent did not perform

the work in a professional and workmanlike manner in violation of A.A.C. R4-9-108(A), and thereby of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3).

5. The preponderance of the evidence shows that Respondent did not perform

perform due diligence to complete the residential remodeling project, which is a violation of A.A.C. R4-9-108(B), and thereby of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3).

6. The undisputed evidence established that Respondent did not provide Complainant with a written contract that included the name and address of the property owner, the estimated date of completion of the work, contact information for the Registrar, the signatures of the parties, and information regarding Complainant’s right to file a complaint with the Registrar. Accordingly, the Administrative Law Judge concludes that Respondent has violated A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(12) and A.R.S. § 32-1158.

7 The preponderance of the evidence shows that Respondent contracted

beyond the scope of its plumbing license, which is a violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154 (A)(16).

8. The preponderance of the evidence shows that Respondent failed to comply with the Registrar’s Directive without valid justification, which is a 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 License No. 332869 issued to Tucson Remodeling, LLC

for five 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 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 ordered that within thirty days of the effective date of the final order, Respondent shall provide to the Registrar copies of its form contract that has been revised to comply with all of the requirements of A.R.S. § 32-1158(A).

If Respondent fails to provide proof that it has so revised its form contracts, it is ordered that Respondent’s license be suspended for fifteen days.

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, March 18, 2025.

/s/ Velva Moses-Thompson

Administrative Law Judge

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

Tom Cole, Director

Registrar of Contractors

SAAS LLC

[email redacted]

Tucson Remodeling, LLC

[email redacted]

By: OAH Staff