ALJDEC - Licensing
2024A-10855-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2025-06-10
IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
Veronica Browne
COMPLAINANT,
v.
Jett Mechanical LLC
License No. ROC 172580,
RESPONDENT.
No. 2024A-10855-CHC-ROC
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION
HEARING: March 21, 2025 and June 10, 2025
APPEARANCES: Veronica Browne (hereinafter “Complainant”) appeared on behalf of herself. Larry Michael Whitacre appeared on behalf of Jett Mechanical LLC (hereinafter “Respondent”).
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Velva Moses-Thompson
_____________________________________________________________________
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Respondent holds license number 172580 issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (hereinafter “Registrar”).
2. Larry Michael Whitacre is the owner of Respondent.
3. On February 18, 2025, the Registrar issued a Notice of Hearing setting the above-entitled matter for hearing on March 21, 2025 at 1:00 p.m. The Notice of Hearing shows that the Complaint and Citation allege that Respondent violated Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(2)(b),(3), and (22); Ariz. Admin. Code R4-9-108(A).
4. A hearing was held on March 21, 2025. During opening statements, the parties requested to set the matter for a status update to afford the parties additional time to resolve their dispute.
5. The matter was set for a status update by April 4, 2025.
6. On April 3, 2024, Complainant notified the tribunal that the parties were unable to resolve their dispute. Complainant requested that the matter be reset for hearing.
7. The Administrative Law Judge issued an order resetting the matter for hearing on June 10, 2025.
8. A hearing was held on June 10, 2025.
9. At the hearing on June 10, 2025, Complainant testified on behalf of herself. Mr. Whiteacre testified on behalf of Respondent. An investigator from the Registrar of Contractors, Gregory Johndrow, (hereinafter “Investigator Johndrow”), testified regarding his investigation of the complaint.
10. On September 3, 2024, Respondent agreed to install a new air conditioning unit in Complainant’s home for the amount of $12,000.00.
11. On September 12, 2024, Respondent started work.
12. On September 16, 2024, Respondent stopped work.
13. On September 26, 2024, Complainant filed a complaint with the Registrar alleging poor workmanship on the part of Respondent.
14. The Registrar assigned the complaint to Investigator Johndrow.
15. On December 2, 2024, Investigator Johndrow conducted a job-site inspection.
16. On December 10, 2024, the Registrar issued a Directive to Respondent directing Respondent to correct complaint items 1, 14, 15, and 23 by appropriate means, no later than December 31, 2024.
17. On January 2, 2025, Investigator Johndrow received an email from Complainant stating that she was unsatisfied with Respondent’s repairs.
18. On January 13, 2025, Investigator Johndrow conducted a compliance inspection. Investigator Johndrow drafted notes regarding his findings during the compliance inspection. Investigator Johndrow concluded that Respondent failed to correctly repair complaint item 1. An application for a permit was submitted, however, a permit was not obtained. Additionally, no inspections had been performed. Investigator Johndrow concluded that Respondent had failed to appropriately correct complaint item 14 because, “the flex ducting, located in the space below the residence, is not strapped and is lying indirect contact with the soil.” Investigator Johndrow found that Respondent had failed to appropriately correct complaint item 23 because, “The section of baseboard damaged by responded during the installation has not been repaired.” Investigator Johndrow found that Respondent had appropriately corrected complaint item 15.
19. On January 15, 2025, the Registrar issued a citation against Respondent’s license alleging that Respondent violated Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(2)(b),(3), and (22); Ariz. Admin. Code R4-9-108(A).
20. At the hearing on June 10, 2025, Investigator Johndrow testified consistently with his job-site and compliance inspection notes.
21. At the hearing on June 10, 2025, Mr. Whiteacre explained at that there is about a 27 inch of space under Complainant home from the bottom of the girder and insulation package to the existing ground. There was limited space under Complainant’s home. Mr. Whiteacre stated that the duct was touching the ground because there is limited space underneath. Complainant’s home. Mr. Whiteacre testified that Respondent made every attempt to get the duct up. Mr. Whiteacre stated that Respondent oversized the duct work to keep equipment quit because the home is only 900 square feet.
Mr. Whiteacre stated that Respondent customized the trim molding to match the unit on the side of the home and there is no problem with the trim. Mr. Whiteacre stated that Respondent made repairs to the damage to the interior wall and it, “looks very nice”.
23. Complainant agreed with the findings of Investigator Johndrow. Complainant explained that Respondent preformed poor work in connection with the air conditioning installation.
24. Administrative notice is taken of the Registrar’s public website. According to the information available on the website on June 10, 2025, Respondent’s license was first issued on April 17, 2022, and is active. Such prior License record also shows there is only one open complaint against Respondent’s license. Such prior License record further shows that Respondent’s license has never been subject to discipline. Respondent’s lack of disciplinary history is considered a mitigating factor in the imposition of discipline and a civil penalty.
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 Ariz. Rev. Stat. section
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, 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)
3. The Administrative Law Judge may consider Registrar’s administrative
record. See A.A.C. § R4-9-118.
4. The preponderance of the evidence shows that Respondent did not obtain the required permit for the work, which is a violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(2)(b).
5. The preponderance of the evidence shows that Respondent’s work failed
to meet minimum workmanship standards, which is a violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. section 32-1154(A)(3), namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(A).
6. The preponderance of the evidence shows that Respondent corrected complaint item 15 by appropriate means.
7. Upon review of the evidence, the Administrative Law Jude concludes that Respondent provided insufficient evidence to establish that it corrected complaint items 1, 14, and 23 by appropriate means. The preponderance of the evidence shows that Respondent failed to comply with the Directive, without valid justification, which is a violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. section 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 number 172580 held by of Jett Mechanical LLC for two days. It is further recommended that the Registrar require Respondent to pay the sum of $250.00 as a civil penalty pursuant to Ariz. Rev. Stat. section 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 Ariz. Rev. Stat. section 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/ Velva Moses-Thompson
Administrative Law Judge
Transmitted by either mail, e-mail, or facsimile to:
Tom Cole, Director
Registrar of Contractors
Veronica Browne
[email redacted]
Jett Mechanical LLC
[email redacted]
By: OAH Staff