ALJDEC - Licensing
2024A-11745-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2025-03-25
IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
Jared Smith
COMPLAINANT
v.
Arizona Shade Masters LLC
License No. ROC 317267,
RESPONDENT.
No. 2024A-11745-CHC-ROC
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION
HEARING: March 10, 2025
APPEARANCES: Jared Smith, (hereinafter “Complainant”), appeared on behalf of himself. Russell Palley appeared on behalf of Arizona Shade Masters, LLC, (hereinafter “Respondent”).
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Velva Moses-Thompson
_____________________________________________________________________
FINDINGS OF FACT
Respondent holds license number 317267 issued by the Arizona Registrar
of Contractors, (hereinafter “Registrar”).
2. Respondent’s qualifying party is Russell Palley.
3. On February 6, 2025, the Registrar issued a Notice of Hearing setting the above-captioned matter for hearing on March 10, 2025, by the Office of Administrative Hearings in Phoenix, Arizona.
4. The Notice of Hearing shows that the hearing was set to consider the
charges made in the Citation and Complaint.
5. Through the Citation, the Registrar alleges that Respondent may have
violated Ariz. Rev. Stat. section 32-1154(A)(3)(specifically, Ariz. Admin. Code section R4-9-108(A); Ariz. Rev. Stat. section 32-1154(A) (22).
6. A hearing was held on March 10, 2025.
7. At hearing, Complainant testified on behalf of himself. Mr. Palley testified on behalf of Respondent. Registrar Investigator Charles Riddlehoover, (hereinafter “Investigator Riddlehoover”), testified regarding his investigation of the complaint.
8. On or about June 9, 2023, Respondent agreed to install a pergola at Complainant’s home for the amount of $15,300.00. Complainant paid Respondent $12,770.00 pursuant to the agreement.
9. On June 9, 2023, Respondent started work.
10. Complainant and Respondent disagreed regarding the height of the pergola at the time of installation. Therefore Respondent disassembled and rebuilt the pergola.
11. On June 16, 2023, Respondent stopped work.
12. The Registrar received a Complaint from Complainant, alleging poor work on the part of Respondent.
13. On or about, November 21, 2024, Investigator Riddlehoover conducted a
Job-site inspection.
14. On December 2, 2024, the Registrar issued a Directive to Respondent.
Investigator Riddlehoover opined that the gaps in the metal structure in Complaint Item 2 may have been caused by the sagging metal parts referenced in Complaint Item 1. The December 2, 2024 Directive provided, in relevant part, as follows:
............................................
Dear Respondent:
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 Monday, December 30, 2024.
RESTRICTIONS
• You may not perform or hire other contractors to perform work that is outside
the scope of your license.
• If your license is currently suspended for administrative reasons1, or is inactive,
expired, or cancelled, you may not perform any corrective work nor contract in
any manner, which includes hiring other contractors to perform work, until the
suspension of your license(s) has been lifted or your license(s) has been
reactivated.
DIRECTIVE REQUIREMENTS
You are directed to remedy the following violations by the appropriate means:
Complaint Item: 1 - Pergola built to low blocked window then raised used
original metal parts now sagging
Investigator’s Observation: Upon inspection of the pergola it was observed
that the pergola roof had a 4.25" difference from post to edge. It was stated by
the Respondent that the standard installation 1" difference. Therefore it is
assumed that either the roof has dropped since installation or was re-installed
incorrectly. Respondent shall correct 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 - reused metal structure now has gaps that they tried to
caulk to cover up metal trim was installed and has come apart
Investigator’s Observation: During our inspection it was observed the
caulking between the posts and roof have separated. This may be due to the
observance in item #1. Respondent shall correct 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 - Uneven fastening on top of pergola, trim was added to
cover mistake
Investigator’s Observation: Upon verification of this allegation it was noted
that the screws were uneven by observance from the top of a ladder.
Trim item is verified, the trim molding on the awning is separated and not
correctly cut to length. Showing space were not securely fastened. Respondent
shall correct 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
ITEMS NOT REQUIRING CORRECTION
The following complaint items require no action by the Respondent:
Complaint Item: - Spray painted areas to cover scratches fading
Investigator’s Observation: Complaint item meets minimum industry
standards. No correction is required.
Governing Rule: Not Applicable
............................................
15. Respondent appropriately corrected the items listed in the Directive, during the timeframe allowed under the Directive, with the exception of Complaint Item 1.
16. During the timeframe for compliance with the Directive, Respondent proposed to correct Complaint Item 1 by installing 45 degree supports. However, Complainant refused to allow Complainant to install 45 degree supports. Complainant did not believe that the installation was necessary.
17. On December 30, 2024, Investigator Riddlehoover received an e-mail request for an extension of the deadline to perform corrective work. Investigator Riddlehoover testified at hearing that the e-mail included a statement that all of the Directive items had not been completed. The e-mail was not submitted at hearing. Complainant denied the extension request.
18. Investigator Riddlehoover did not return to inspect the corrective work performed by Respondent after the issuance of the Directive.
19. Respondent filed a timely answer to the Citation that was issued in this matter.
20. The matter was referred to the Office of Administrative Hearings for an evidentiary hearing.
21. Complainant works for a general contractor. Complainant asserted at hearing that Respondent performed poor work and failed to correct the deficiencies listed in the Directive, during the timeframe for compliance under the Directive. Complainant opined at hearing the pergola sagged because Respondent use small non-structural screws during construction. Additionally, Complainant did not believe that the pergola could be properly rebuilt after it was disassembled, because the parts were pre-cut. Complainant admitted that he is not an expert in pergola systems.
22. Mr. Palley opined at hearing that metal parts of the pergola would not have sagged if the homeowner would have allowed Respondent to install 45 degree angle supports. Mr. Palley explained that Respondent corrected all of the other items listed in the Directive.
23. Administrative notice is taken of the Registrar’s public website. According to the information available on the website on March 25, 2025, Respondent’s license was first issued on December 26, 2017, and is suspended. Such prior License record also shows that there is one open complaint against Respondent’s license and two complaints were resolved.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
This matter lies within the Registrar’s jurisdiction. See Ariz. Rev. Stat. section 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, 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).
3. Upon consideration of the evidence presented at hearing, the Administrative Law Judge concludes that Complainant failed to meet its burden to establish that Respondent failed to appropriately correct Complaint Items 2 and 3.
Complainant provided testimony that the pergola was inadequately repaired.
Mr. Palley explained that Respondent appropriately repaired the Directive items, with the exception of Complaint Item 1. It is undisputed that Investigator Riddlehoover did not observe the corrections made by Respondent pursuant to the Directive.
4. The evidence presented at hearing shows that Respondent proposed to correct Complaint Item 1 through 45 degree angle supports. However, Complainant rejected Respondent’s proposal. Complainant did not allow Respondent to correct Complaint Item 1 in the manner that Respondent deemed to be appropriate. Complainant denied Respondent reasonable access to his home to repair the sagging metal parts of the pergola.
5. As a result, this Tribunal concludes that the preponderance of the evidence of record is insufficient and fails to support a conclusion that Respondent violated the charged provisions of Ariz. Rev. Stat. sections 32-1154(A) (3), namely, A.A.C. R4-9-108(A), and Ariz. Rev. Stat. section 32-1154(A) (22).
RECOMMENDed order
In view of the foregoing, it is recommended that this matter be dismissed.
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, March 25, 2025.
/s/ Velva Moses-Thompson
Administrative Law Judge
Transmitted by either mail, e-mail, or facsimile to:
Tom Cole, Director
Registrar of Contractors
Jared Smith
[email redacted]
Arizona Shade Masters LLC
[email redacted]
By: OAH Staff