ALJDEC - Licensing

2024A-10187-NPC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2025-01-13

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

AZ Crane By Nichols LLC,

COMPLAINANT.

Ace Threw Z Homes LLC,

License No. ROC 348350,

RESPONDENT.

No. 2024A-10187-NPC-ROC

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION

HEARING: December 24, 2024

APPEARANCES: Matthew Nichols, Owner, appeared and represented AZ Crane by Nichols LLC. No person appeared representing Ace Threw Z Homes LLC.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Kay A. Abramsohn

EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: ROC Notice of Hearing Packet (Administrative Record or AR); Complainant’s documents (22 undesignated pages).

_____________________________________________________________________

FINDINGS OF FACT

Ace Threw Z Homes LLC (Respondent) is the holder of License No. 348350, Specialty Dual CR-7 Carpentry, issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (Registrar) in October of 2023.

AZ Crane by Nichols LLC (Complainant) worked with Respondent on several projects. Complainant would invoice monthly on the projects and, while Complainant did receive occasional payments, some check would bounce and Respondent’s promises to pay through Zelle would not bill be fulfilled.

On September 3, 2024, the Registrar received a Non-Payment Complaint against Respondent from Complainant alleging nonpayment on four invoices, totaling $3,031.97. Complainant provided copies of the invoices and the work orders, which specify the 15-day payment terms.

On October 22, 2024, the Registrar issued a Citation against Respondent, charging the possible violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(10), failure to pay monies in excess of $750 when due for materials or services rendered in connections with a licensee’s operations as a contractor.

On November 5, 2024, Respondent filed a response to the Registrar. The response was cursory, stating that than Respondent had been in a dispute with a builder who had written him a bad check and providing screen shots of that transaction. Respondent further queried whether he could set up a 3-part payment to make the payment to Complainant.

The matter was not resolved informally between the parties.

The Registrar referred the matter to the Office of Administrative Hearings, an independent state agency, for an evidentiary hearing.

On November 15, 2024, the Registrar issued its Notice of Hearing, setting a hearing to convene at 9:00 a.m. on December 24, 2024. The Registrar mailed copies of the Notice of Hearing to Respondent at the address and email address of record.

On November 24, 2024, the Office of Administrative Hearings issued an order by email advising the parties the hearing would be conducted virtually by videoconference or telephone via Google Meet and providing the instructions to connect to the hearing.

The hearing was convened and conducted through Google Meet on December 24, 2024.

Respondent did not appear by videoconference or telephone and had not previously requested that the hearing be continued. Although the start of the hearing was delayed a minimum of 15 minutes, Respondent did not appear. Consequently, Respondent did not present any evidence to defend the allegations or defend his license.

At hearing, Mr. Nichols reviewed for the hearing record the invoices that were sent to Respondent and discussed the disappointing payment process from Respondent. At the time of the hearing, a total of $3,031.97 remained unpaid on the invoices. Complainant indicated that communication between the parties had become nonexistent.

Administrative notice is taken of Respondent’s License record as of January 13, 2025. Such License record reflects that Respondent’s License is active and is renewed through October 31, 2025. The License record also reflects that this case is the only open case against Respondent’s license.

Since the day of the hearing, Complainant has not notified the Tribunal that Respondent has made any payment, either in full or in part.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

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

The copy of the Notice of Hearing that the Registrar mailed to Respondent at Respondent’s address and email address of record were reasonable and Respondent is deemed to have received notice of the hearing. A.R.S. §§ 41-1092.04 and 41-1092.05(D).

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 evidence of record established that Complainant provided services to Respondent for projects on which Respondent was working and, further, that Respondent failed to make payment on at least four of Complainant’s invoices for the services supplied.

Respondent failed to appear. Respondent’s Answer to the Citation did not provide any information to connect the information stated therein to the Respondent’s services. Therefore, Respondent failed to present any evidence to the contrary or support any details regarding any defense to the non-payment allegation. Therefore, the evidence of record and Complainant established that Respondent is in violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(10).

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Based on the foregoing, it is recommended that on the effective date of the Registrar’s final order, in the absence of evidentiary proof from Complainant that Respondent has paid the remaining unpaid balance of $3031.97 to Complainant in full, the Registrar shall suspend Respondent’s License No. 2348350, effective on such deadline date.

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 shall 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)(5), 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.

-54864001

001

-137160-45720000Done this day, January 13, 2025.

/s/ Kay A. Abramsohn

Administrative Law Judge

Transmitted electronically to:

Tom Cole, Director

Registrar of Contractors

[email redacted]

Ace Threw Z Homes LLC

1550 W Southern Ave Lot 38

Phoenix, AZ 85041

[email redacted]

AZ Crane By Nichols LLC

9654 E Greenway St

Mesa, AZ 85207

[email redacted]

By: OAH Staff