ALJDEC - Licensing

2024A-10118-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2025-08-04

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

Jordan Purdue,

COMPLAINANT

v.

Innovated Landscaping LLC

License No. ROC 350957,

RESPONDENT

No. 2024A-10118-CHC-ROC

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION

HEARING: July 21, 2025

APPEARANCES: Lawrence J. Felder, Esq. appeared on behalf of Complainant Jordan Purdue. Tyler Krueger and Jayne Gunnison appeared on behalf of Respondent Innovated Landscaping LLC. Registrar of Contractors Investigator James Carter was also present.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Adam D. Stone

EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: Complainant’s Exhibits 1-65 and Respondent’s Exhibit V were admitted into evidence.

_____________________________________________________________________

FINDINGS OF FACT

Innovated Landscaping LLC (Respondent) is the holder of License No. 350957 issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (Registrar).

On or about May 17, 2024, Complainant hired Respondent to remodel her backyard, including installation of a gazebo, pavers, and irrigation at her home in Laveen, Arizona. The total contract price was $19,805.00 and Complainant paid $14,550.00.

On or about September 3, the Registrar received a Complaint against Respondent from Complainant alleging poor work with respect to project.

The Registrar assigned the complaint to Investigator James Carter. The jobsite inspection was performed on October 3, 2024.

Investigator Carter then issued a Written Directive on or about October 22, 2024, which provided in pertinent part 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, November 15, 2024.

. . .

DIRECTIVE REQUIREMENTS

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

Complaint Item: 1 - Gazebo installed incorrectly: beams misaligned; screws, supports, parts not installed per manual

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. Investigator observed the roof of the gazebo out of square with the cross beams at the top of the gazebo. The Respondent will need to correct this by the appropriate means.

Governing Rule: Violation of any rule adopted by the Registrar; Namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(a): A contractor shall perform all work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) - R4-9-108(A) Workmanship

Complaint Item: 2 - Gazebo concrete footings were never installed under

30mm pavers per agreement

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. Investigator observed the legs of the gazebo attached to the pavers and not to any footings. The Respondent will need to correct this by the appropriate means.

Governing Rule: Violation of any rule adopted by the Registrar; Namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(a): A contractor shall perform all work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) - R4-9-108(A) Workmanship

Complaint Item: 3 - Gazebo is not properly secured to the ground; bolts are lifting from the ground

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. Investigator observed the bolts attached to the base pulling up from the ground primarily at the back two legs. The Respondent will need to correct this by the appropriate means.

Governing Rule: Violation of any rule adopted by the Registrar; Namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(a): A contractor shall perform all work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) - R4-9-108(A) Workmanship

Complaint Item: 4 - Gazebo damaged throughout entire structure: scratches, stains, cracks, chips, etc.

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. Investigator observed damage throughout the surface of the materials used to build the gazebo. Respondent acknowledged damage was caused during construction. The Respondent will need to correct this by the appropriate means.

Governing Rule: Violation of any rule adopted by the Registrar; Namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(a): A contractor shall perform all work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) - R4-9-108(A) Workmanship

Complaint Item: 5 - Gazebo damage to front left post was not properly addressed per agreement made: stain issues

Investigator’s Observation: Investigator did observe damage to the post.

Both parties agreed that the damage was caused during construction and that a 4x4 solid beam would be installed to support the hollow pole. Inspector has no first-hand knowledge if the beam was installed however all damage should be addressed per the orders on Item #4

Governing Rule: Violation of any rule adopted by the Registrar; Namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(a): A contractor shall perform all work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) - R4-9-108(A) Workmanship

Complaint Item: 6 - Paver pathway was installed where paver border was to be installed in front of retaining wall per agreement

Investigator’s Observation: Respondent agree that the pavers were not installed as agreed upon. Respondent shall complete project per original contract agreement

Governing Rule: Violation of any rule adopted by the Registrar; Namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(a): A contractor shall perform all work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) - R4-9-108(A) Workmanship

Complaint Item: 7 - Paver pathway that was installed in front of retaining wall is misaligned with existing pavers at the Gazebo area

Investigator’s Observation: Respondent agree that the pavers were not installed as agreed upon. Respondent shall complete project per original contract agreement

Governing Rule: Violation of any rule adopted by the Registrar; Namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(a): A contractor shall perform all work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) - R4-9-108(A) Workmanship

Complaint Item: 8 - Paver pathway to pool entrance is not square with existing platform per agreement

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. Investigator observed the pathway was at an angle and not squared. The Respondent will need to correct this by the appropriate means.

Governing Rule: Violation of any rule adopted by the Registrar; Namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(a): A contractor shall perform all work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) - R4-9-108(A) Workmanship

Complaint Item: 9 - Paver pathway by porch and to pool area is elevated with exposed concrete edging restraints

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. Investigator observed the footings of the paver above the surface of the grass. Respondent claims that they were told the would be getting 60mm pavers but Complainant provided 30mm pavers. Pavers should be installed correctly regardless of the size. The Respondent will need to correct this by the appropriate means.

Governing Rule: Violation of any rule adopted by the Registrar; Namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(a): A contractor shall perform all work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) - R4-9-108(A) Workmanship

Complaint Item: 10 - Exposed concrete edging restraints exposed

throughout entire back yard behind home

Investigator’s Observation: Same as Item #9

Governing Rule: Violation of any rule adopted by the Registrar; Namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(a): A contractor shall perform all work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) - R4-9-108(A) Workmanship

Complaint Item: 12 - Irrigation timer never installed per contract

Investigator’s Observation: Respond advised that timer was not installed. Respondent shall complete project per original contract agreement

Governing Rule: Violation of any rule adopted by the Registrar; Namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(a): A contractor shall perform all work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) - R4-9-108(A) Workmanship

Complaint Item: 13 - Contractor wired into existing front yard timer without

consent and voided existing timer's warranty

Investigator’s Observation: Same as Item #12

Governing Rule: Violation of any rule adopted by the Registrar; Namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(a): A contractor shall perform all work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) - R4-9-108(A) Workmanship

Complaint Item: 14 - French drain closest to back porch was not installed; It was only made to look like it was installed

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. Respondent acknowledge that a drain was not installed as agreed upon. Respondent dug a deeper pit to allow for drainage. No change order was given and no agreement was made between parties. Respondent shall complete project per original contract agreement.

Governing Rule: Violation of any rule adopted by the Registrar; Namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(a): A contractor shall perform all work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) - R4-9-108(A) Workmanship

Complaint Item: 15 - String lighting installed over pool: area taped with electrical tape was not fully connected

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. When lights were turned on Investigator observed that not all lights came on. The Respondent will need to correct this by the appropriate means.

Governing Rule: Violation of any rule adopted by the Registrar; Namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(a): A contractor shall perform all work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) - R4-9-108(A) Workmanship

Complaint Item: 18 - String light poles are bent/warped

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. A number of the poles along the wall were bent. The Respondent will need to correct this by the appropriate means

Governing Rule: Violation of any rule adopted by the Registrar; Namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(a): A contractor shall perform all work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) - R4-9-108(A) Workmanship

Complaint Item: 20 - Broken glass throughout pool area from broken bulbs

during installation

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. Investigator observed broken light bulbs on the ground around the pool and Respondent attempted to pick up and conceal some of the glass during the inspection. The Respondent will need to correct this by the appropriate means

Governing Rule: Violation of any rule adopted by the Registrar; Namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(a): A contractor shall perform all work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) - R4-9-108(A) Workmanship

Complaint Item: 25 - Paver pathway along house has large gap in area where the slab meets the pavers; pavers are not in a straight line

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. Investigator observed an uneven gap between the pavers and the stem wall of the home. The Respondent will need to correct this by the appropriate means

Governing Rule: Violation of any rule adopted by the Registrar; Namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(a): A contractor shall perform all work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) - R4-9-108(A) Workmanship

Complaint Item: 26 - Paver area near gazebo area has significant gap where pavers line up with retaining wall

Investigator’s Observation: As per Item #6 this area was not installed per

plan. The Respondent will need to correct this by appropriate means

Governing Rule: Violation of any rule adopted by the Registrar; Namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(a): A contractor shall perform all work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) - R4-9-108(A) Workmanship

Complaint Item: 32 - Water supply for irrigation tapped into pool supply

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. Investigator observed and Respondent acknowledge that the irrigation system was tapped into the pool supply line. The Respondent will need to correct this by the appropriate means

Governing Rule: Violation of any rule adopted by the Registrar; Namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(a): A contractor shall perform all work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) - R4-9-108(A) Workmanship...

On December 23, 2024, Investigator Carter completed a Compliance Jobsite Inspection and noted the following items remained uncorrected:

Compliance Findings:

Complaint Item: 1 - Gazebo installed incorrectly: beams misaligned; screws, supports, parts not installed per manual

Investigator’s Initial Observation: Verified. Investigator observed the roof of the gazebo out of square with the cross beams at the top of the gazebo. The Respondent will need to correct this by the appropriate means.

Compliance Observation: Beams are still out of square. Respondent’s had someone attempt to make repairs and in the process cut one of the beams. Respondent was unaware this was done and had no explanation as to why

Governing Rule: Violation of any rule adopted by the Registrar; Namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(a): A contractor shall perform all work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

☐ CORRECTED ☒ NOT CORRECTED

. . .

Complaint Item: 20 - Broken glass throughout pool area from broken bulbs during installation

Investigator’s Initial Observation: Verified. Investigator observed broken light bulbs on the ground around the pool and Respondent attempted to pick up and conceal some of the glass during the inspection. The Respondent will need to correct this by the appropriate means

Compliance Observation: Complainant showed some pieces of broken glass still. Respondent advised he had blown glass out the area every day that he was out working

Governing Rule: Violation of any rule adopted by the Registrar; Namely A.A.C. R4- 9-108(a): A contractor shall perform all work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

☐ CORRECTED ☒ NOT CORRECTED

. . .

Note: Item #1 & #20 were not completed within standards. Item #1 was not installed per manufacture specs and alterations to the structure were made with no reasonable explanation. Item #20 presents a safety hazard.

(All errors contained in the original).

On December 26, 2024, the Registrar issued a Citation against Respondent, charging possible violations of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(A); and A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22).

On or about January 10, 2025, Respondent submitted an Answer to the Registrar.

On or about February 5, 2025, a Notice of Hearing was issued setting a hearing on March 7, 2025, at the Office of Administrative Hearings, an independent state agency. The Notice of Hearing was sent to Respondent’s mailing and e-mail address of record. Further the Office of Administrative Hearings issued an Order setting the matter on Google Meet on June 4, 2025 and sent it to the parties’ email mail addresses of record.

On May 29, 2025, the Registrar issued a Correction of Clerical Error, correcting both the Citation and Notice of Hearing as follows:

In the December 27, 2024 Citation, on page 1, line 23, “R4-9-108(C)” shall be replaced with “R4-9-108(A).”

In the February 5, 2025 Notice of Hearing, on page 2, line 20, “R4-9-108(C)” shall be replaced with “R4-9-108(A)”.

At hearing, Investigator Carter testified as to the Registrar’s involvement and the above timeline and findings.

Investigator Carter testified that there were still two items which remained uncorrected once the Written Directive expired, namely, the gazebo not being square, and the presence of glass in the pool area.

Complainant testified that as to the broken glass, there were no other workers at her property who could have done the damage.

As to the gazebo, Complainant testified that she too conducted her own leveling of the structure and found that it was out of level, not square, as well as many cuts and alterations made by Respondent’s workers, and other forced fitted alternations made.

Mr. Kreuger testified that because this was a commercial product, most of the materials consisted of inferior wood, and that everything was pre-drilled. Further, Mr. Krueger testified her followed the manufacturers specifications and told the investigator that some of the materials were dangerous. Further, Mr. Kreuger testified that he disagreed with Investigator Carter’s finding that the beams were not squared.

In addition, Mr. Kreuger testified that he did not break the glass, and that the bulbs were broken after he installed the same.

Administrative notice was taken of Respondent’s prior License record on August 5, 2025. Such prior License record reflected that Respondent’s License No. 350957 was first issued on March 15, 2024, and reflected that there was one open case, namely the present case.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

This matter lies within the Registrar’s jurisdiction. See A.R.S. § 32-1101 et seq.

Complainant bears the burden of proof to establish Respondent’s statutory violations 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 Vazzano 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 established that there was a violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(A), as items 1-10, 12-15, 18, 20, 25-26, and 32 in the complaint all suffered from poor workmanship.

Finally, the preponderance of the evidence established that while Respondent corrected the vast majority of the items, there were two items which remained incomplete. The gazebo beams were still out of square, and there were still shards of broken glass present in the landscape. 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 No. 350957 for a period of three days.

It is further recommended that the Registrar require Respondent to pay the sum of $250.00 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.

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, August 4, 2025.

/s/ Adam D. Stone

Administrative Law Judge

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

Tom Cole, Director

Registrar of Contractors

Lawrence J. Felder, Esq.

Resolvere Law PLLC

[email redacted]

[email redacted]

Innovated Landscaping LLC

[email redacted]

[email redacted]

By: OAH Staff