ALJDEC - Licensing
2024A-11791-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2025-02-26
IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
Angelica Velez,
COMPLAINANT
v.
RX LANDSCAPE LLC
License No. ROC 330720,
RESPONDENT
No. 2024A-11791-CHC-ROC
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION
HEARING: February 21, 2025 at 9:00am
APPEARANCES: Angelica Velez, Complainant; Alberto Velez, Complainant Observer. Roman Marzeleno on behalf of RX Landscape LLC, Respondent. Todd Anderson, Arizona Registrar of Contractor Investigator.
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Nicole Robinson
EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: Arizona Registrar of Contractor Notice of Hearing Packet (Packet)
FINDINGS OF FACT
RX Landscape LLC (Respondent) is the holder of License No. ROC 330720 issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (Registrar).
On or about July 15, 2024, Angelica Velez (Complainant) entered into a contract with Respondent for, among other things, a landscaping project at her residence located in Phoenix, Arizona.
The work on the project began on or about August 12, 2024, and work stopped on September 20, 2024. The project remained incomplete on September 20, 2024. The contract amount on the project totaled $26,660.56 and Respondent was paid out in full.
On or about October 21, 2024, the Registrar received a Complaint against Respondent from Complainant alleging job abandonment with respect to the project.
The Registrar assigned the complaint to Investigator Todd Anderson. A jobsite inspection was scheduled for November 13, 2024 and both parties were present. After the jobsite inspection, Investigator Anderson 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 December 6, 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 reasons, 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 – Sands for pavers
Investigator’s Observation: Verified. The Homeowner was referring to the lack of Polymeric Sand between the pavers in both the front and backyards. The addition of the sand was included in the contract as part of the paver installation. Contractor shall install Polymeric Sand as per contract.
. . . .
Complaint Item: 2 – to set 10 plants
Investigator’s Observation: Verified; however, the Jobsite Inspection, the Contractor stated that there were to be only (6) shrubs planted: (3) in the front yard and (3) in the backyard. The contract shows "(2) 10gal - Lantanas and (2) 10gal- blue Fescues" totaling $260.00. Contractor shall complete the installation of the plants as per contract and/or verified verbal agreements.
. . . .
Complaint Item: 3 – Hide irrigation pipes
Investigator’s Observation: Verified. I observed a temporary drip line irrigation lying above ground in the front yard. The contract called for approximately 300 L/F of drip line including trenching and backfilling. The contractor explained that this was done in order to keep the plants from perishing before he could return to finish the project. Contractor shall the installation of drip line as per contract.
. . . .
Complaint Item: 4 – 1” white rocks
Investigator’s Observation: Verified. The Homeowner was referring to the addition of 1" white rocks which were to be spread inside (2) fruit tree planters. I was unable to locate this line item in the contract; however, the Contractor had stipulated at the Jobsite Inspection that these were to be added. Contractor shall install the 1" white rocks as per contract and/or verified verbal agreements.
Following the issuance of the written directive, there was no additional work performed on the project. After the deadline in the directive expired, Complainant informed Investigator Anderson that no corrective work had been performed.
On December 11, 2024, 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 Anderson testified that he became aware that Respondent’s license was in a Suspended status sometime in September 2024. As such, Investigator Anderson allotted more time between the issuance of the written directive and the deadline date so Respondent could remedy the issues with the license.
Complainant testified that after the jobsite inspection she did not hear back from Respondent. Complainant classified the matter as job abandonment because there was remaining work to be completed and no one from Respondent came back to the work site to finish the outstanding items.
Roman Marzeleno testified on behalf of Respondent stating that sometime in September 2024 the Registrar license for Respondent was suspended due to a no-pay issue that had to be resolved first to reactivate the license. Respondent’s license was not deemed active until February 2025. As such, Respondent could not perform any work under its license after the written directive was issued. Investigator Anderson testified that a business with a suspended license could not subcontract but they could seek out a licensed contractor with an active license to connect with Complainant to finish the work that was left unfinished. Then Respondent could work out payment with Complainant to pay the newly hired contractor. Mr. Marzeleno did not broach a way to settle the matter with Complainant in regards to Respondent’s suspended license. Mr. Marzeleno testified that because of a “lack of funds” and the status of the license, he was unable to complete the work.
Administrative notice is taken of Respondent’s prior License record on February 21, 2025. Such prior License record reflects that Respondent’s License No. ROC 330720 was first issued on September 21, 2020, and is Active. Such prior License record also reflects that there is one open complaint (this current matter) and one resolved/settled complaint 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 “proof 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).
Furthermore, 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 330720 for a period of two 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, February 26, 2025.
/s/ Nicole Robinson
Administrative Law Judge
Transmitted by either mail, e-mail, or facsimile to:
Tom Cole, Director
Registrar of Contractors
1700 W. Washington Street, Suite 105
Phoenix, AZ 85007
[email redacted]
Angelica Velez
2407 W. Corral Rd.
Phoenix, AZ 85041
[email redacted]
RX LANDSCAPE LLC
520 W Union Hills Dr. Ste. 104 #235
Phoenix, AZ 85027
[email redacted]
Todd Anderson
[email redacted]
By: OAH Staff