ALJDEC - Licensing

2024A-09447-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2024-11-04

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

Martin M Roush,

COMPLAINANT

v.

Gold Canyon Kitchen & Bath, Inc.

License No. ROC 333160,

RESPONDENT

No. 2024A-09447-CHC-ROC

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION

HEARING: October 31, 2024

APPEARANCES: Martin M. Roush, Complainant representing himself. Jeanne Roush, Complainant Witness. Robert Hansen, appeared on behalf of Respondent, Gold Canyon Kitchen & Bath, Inc. Steven Avila, Registrar of Contractor Investigator.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Nicole Robinson

EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: Amended Notice of Hearing Packet (Packet) submitted by the Registrar of Contractors.

_____________________________________________________________________

FINDINGS OF FACT

Gold Canyon Kitchen & Bath, Inc. (Respondent) is the holder of License No. ROC 333160 issued by the Registrar of Contractors (Registrar).

On July 9, 2024, Martin M. Roush (Complainant) agreed to have Respondent remove and install a kitchen sink and faucet, install a new reverse osmosis system, install backsplash tile in the kitchen, and remove and install a new shower door. These projects were to be completed at his residential home in Gold Canyon, Arizona. The total contracted amount of the project was $5,650.00, and the monetary amount due to the Respondent to begin the work was $3,390.00. Complainant paid the $3,390.00 deposit via a PayPal transaction on July 11, 2024.

On August 1, 2024, Respondent emailed Complainant which stated in part, “To our clients; We are very sad to say we have to close our doors. We will no longer be doing business. Thank you for your business and support. Below I have added the link for our Surety Bond and the Recovery Fund which between the two will make you whole again.”

On August 13, 2024, the Registrar received a Complaint against Respondent from Complainant alleging job abandonment. On September 6, 2024, the Registrar issued a Citation against Respondent, charging a violation of Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) § 32-1154(A)(1).

On September 6, 2024, Respondent emailed an Answer to the Registrar. In the Answer, Respondent stated, “We notified all our clients we were closing our doors and, in that email, I sent the clients the links to file with our Surety Bond and the Recovery fund that we paid into for cases like this.”

Administrative notice is taken of Respondent’s prior license record and such prior license record reflects that Respondent’s License No. 333160 was first issued on April 27, 2021. Effective September 18, 2024, Respondent’s License No. 333160 was revoked. Such prior License record also reflects that there were five prior complaints resulting in discipline against Respondent’s license.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

This matter lies within the Registrar’s jurisdiction.

Respondent’s revoked license does not deprive Complainant of his right to prosecute his complaint or prevent the Registrar from determining the merits of the complaint.

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.” A preponderance of the evidence is “[t]he greater weight of the evidence, not necessarily established by the greater number of witnesses testifying to a fact but by evidence that has the most convincing force; superior evidentiary weight that, though not sufficient to free the mind wholly from all reasonable doubt, is still sufficient to incline a fair and impartial mind to one side of the issue rather than the other.”

In this case, the evidence established that Respondent submitted a bid for Complainant’s project, Respondent accepted a down payment of $3,390.00 from Complainant, and Respondent did not perform any work identified in the bid. Accordingly, Complainant established that Respondent abandoned the contract and failed to complete the project in a professional and workmanlike manner in violation of A.R.S. § 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. 333160, in regards to this 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, November 4, 2024.

/s/Nicole Robinson

Administrative Law Judge

Transmitted electronically to:

Tom Cole, Director

Registrar of Contractors

[email redacted]

Martin M Roush

[email redacted]

Gold Canyon Kitchen & Bath, Inc.

[email redacted]

Steven Avila

[email redacted]

By: OAH Staff