ALJDEC - Licensing

2024A-11419-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2025-06-23

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

Scott Helbing,

COMPLAINANT,

v.

Spartan Shade Systems, LLC

License No. ROC 336822,

RESPONDENT.

No. 2024A-11419-CHC-ROC

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION

HEARING: June 6, 2025 at 1:00pm

APPEARANCES: Complainant Scott Helbing on his own behalf. Ruben Maynes on behalf of Respondent Spartan Shade Systems, LLC. Investigator Aaron King on behalf of the Arizona Registrar of Contractors.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Nicole Robinson

EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: Arizona Registrar of Contractors Notice of Hearing Packet (“Packet”)

_____________________________________________________________________

FINDINGS OF FACT

Spartan Shade Systems LLC (“Respondent”) is the holder of License No. ROC 336822 issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (“Registrar”).

On or about January 19, 2024, Scott Helbing (“Complainant”) entered into a contract with Respondent for, among other things, a shade structure for the backyard.

On or about October 9, 2024, the Registrar received a Complaint against Respondent from Complainant alleging abandonment with respect to the project.

The Registrar assigned the complaint to Investigator Aaron King. A jobsite inspection was originally scheduled on December 12, 2024. Investigator King rescheduled the jobsite inspection which was held on January 3, 2025 at 10:00am. Respondent was not present for the inspection. On January 3, 2025, Investigator King issued a Written Directive to Respondent that provided 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 21 January, 2025.

. . . .

DIRECTIVE REQUIREMENTS

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

Complaint Item: The contract was signed electronically; contractor only provided the attached invoice. The invoice outlines product purchased, costs, change orders, and payment schedule and summary. Contractor to install patio system pending HOA approval & indicated could be done w/or w/o permit. Scott Helbing and Ruben Maynes Jr. of Spartan Shade Systems, LLC negotiated the contract terms. 50% was due at signing, 50% upon completion, with permit costs paid upon change order. Payments were to be made directly to Spartan Shade Systems, LLC. Latest completion date: 07/19/2024 pending permits. Workmanship: The initial completion date of the project was to be 30 days after HOA approval. HOA approval indicated that a building permit may be needed. Calls to Town of Gilbert confirmed all structures greater than 200 sq.ft (project = 460 sq.ft) required engineered drawings & a permit. Change order including engineering & permitting was added & paid for on 2/28/2024. Invoice states engineering and permitting can take 12-16 weeks. Between April 12 & May 15, several email requests for an update on when engineering would be complete were either ignored or answered without giving a completion date, but finally giving an estimate of 2 weeks after May 15. Between June 4 & Aug. 21, several more email requests for update were sent & responded to with no date provided. On Sept. 5, Ruben called & advised he found a local firm that could do the engineering, but he acknowledged to having breached the agreement due non-performance at this date. Request was made for refund during this conversation & Ruben said he would call again with refund information. Between Sept. 7 & Oct. 1, several calls & email requests made to Ruben with no answer or return call. As of time of complaint filing, neither engineering or any work at home have been completed.

Investigator’s Observation: The complaint was filed under poor workmanship however the work has not been started. The Complainant wants a refund for work that was paid for and not completed. When discussing this at the meeting, the Complainant realized this to be an abandonment complaint. The preponderance of evidence suggests that the project has in fact been abandoned. The Respondent has taken several deposits and payments from the Complainant while providing timelines for completion that were not started. The Complainant is not able to get in contact with the Respondent anymore. My notifications to the Respondent have not been responded to and the Respondent was not present for the inspection. There is no indication of the work being started on this project, and with the evidence of payments made, substantial amount of time passing without work and the inability to establish communication with the Respondent, I verify that the project has been abandoned. The Respondent will correct this immediately.

Governing Rule: Workmanship Rule: ARS §32-1154 (A)(1) Abandonment of a contract or refusal to perform after submitting a bid on work without legal excuse for the abandonment or refusal.

Following the issuance of the Written Directive, Respondent did not work on the project. After the deadline in the directive expired, Investigator King was notified that Respondent did not return back to the project and no corrective work was performed.

On March 19, 2025, Investigator King held a compliance inspection and notated that Complaint Item 1 from the Written Directive was not corrected.

On March 21, 2025, the Registrar issued a Citation against Respondent, charging possible violations of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(1) and Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(22).

Hearing Evidence

Investigator King testified that on or about December 31, 2024, he began to have difficulty with Respondent’s email address of record and did not hear from the Respondent after January 7, 2025.

Complainant testified that he tried to communicate with Respondent but it was difficult to get a hold of them. Complainant paid $12,200.00 towards the project on or about February 2024, and no work was ever performed. Complainant testified that, at one point, he informed Respondent he just wanted a refund and Ruben Maynes on behalf of Respondent informed Complainant he would issue him a check but that never happened.

Mr. Maynes, Qualifying Party, on behalf of Respondent testified that he went through a divorce and dealt with personal issues during this time. Mr. Maynes testified that it became difficult to acquire material from a dealer for his business. Mr. Maynes began to manufacture his own material but then he began to liquidate the company’s assets to pay back a few customers who were similarly situated as Complainant.

Administrative notice is taken of Respondent’s prior License record on June 6, 2025. Such prior License record reflects that Respondent’s License No. ROC 336822 was first issued on February 25, 2022, and is Active. Such prior License record also reflects that there was one open complaint and two complaints resulting in discipline against Respondent’s license.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

This matter lies within the Registrar’s jurisdiction.

Complainant bears the burden of proof to establish Respondent’s statutory violations by a preponderance of the evidence. A preponderance of the evidence means “[p]roof which leads the trier of fact to find that the existence of the contested fact is more probable than its nonexistence.”

In this case, the evidence established that Respondent submitted a bid for Complainant’s project and did not perform the work in the bid. Accordingly, Complainant established that Respondent abandoned the contract in violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(1).

Although, Mr. Maynes was going through personal matters and issues with manufacturing material, he admitted to having received $12,200.00 and did not start and complete the project he contracted for. The evidence established that Respondent did not attempt to complete the corrective work following the Directive being issued. Therefore, Complainant established that Respondent failed to take appropriate corrective action following a written directive from the Registrar in violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 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. ROC 336822 for a period of ten days.

It is further recommended that the Registrar require Respondent to pay the sum of $500.00 as a civil penalty pursuant to Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 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. § 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.

Done this day, June 23, 2025.

/s/ Nicole Robinson

Administrative Law Judge

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

Tom Cole, Director

Registrar of Contractors

Aaron King

[email redacted]

Spartan Shade Systems, LLC

[email redacted]

Scott Helbing

[email redacted]

By: OAH Staff