ALJDEC - Licensing

2024A-11842-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2025-03-31

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

Robin DiTolla,

COMPLAINANT,

v.

STATE CONSTRUCTION, LLC

License No. ROC 341999,

RESPONDENT.

No. 2024A-11842-CHC-ROC

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION

HEARING: March 17, 2025

APPEARANCES: Complainant Robin DiTolla appeared on her own behalf, with her husband, Jim DiTolla, and her brother, Robert Holder. Zebula Doll appeared on behalf of Respondent State Construction, LLC. Arizona Registrar of Contractors Investigator Miles Crosby appeared as a witness.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Sondra J. Vanella

EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: Administrative Notice taken of Agency Record; Complainant Robin DiTolla’s Exhibit 1.

FINDINGS OF FACT

State Construction, LLC (“Respondent”) is the holder of License Number 341999 issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (“Registrar”).

In or about December 2023, Robin DiTolla (“Complainant”) contracted with Respondent for Respondent to perform the reconstruction of the first floor of a cabin that had been water damaged. The contract price was $39,281.00. Complainant has paid Respondent approximately $29,000.00.

On or about October 22, 2024, the Registrar received a Complaint against Respondent from Complainant alleging abandonment and poor work with respect to the project.

The Registrar assigned the Complaint to Investigator Miles Crosby. After a November 6, 2024 Jobsite Inspection, at which both parties were present, Investigator Crosby issued a Written Directive to Respondent dated November 13, 2024, 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 Saturday, December 14, 2024.

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

Complaint Item: 1 - No backdoor painted interior three times with wrong paint Shoddy drywall painted interior three times withe wrong paint

Investigator’s Observation: In progress work. The Respondent has had a reasonable amount of time to fulfill the contract and should correct/complete by appropriate means at the agreed upon price.

Complaint Item: 2 - No working bathroom No finished tile in shower/bathtub /only green board up No showers/tub doors No kitchen countertop

Investigator’s Observation: In progress work. The Respondent has had a reasonable amount of time to fulfill the contract and should correct/complete by appropriate means at the agreed upon price.

Complaint Item: 3 - no vanity top in bathroom No stain for kitchen cabinet or bathroom vanity or baseboards No covering for new floors

Investigator’s Observation: In progress work. The Respondent has had a reasonable amount of time to fulfill the contract and should correct/complete by appropriate means at the agreed upon price.

Complaint Item: 4 - No carpet on stairs Property backdoor is plywood

Investigator’s Observation: In progress work. The Respondent has had a reasonable amount of time to fulfill the contract and should correct/complete by appropriate means at the agreed upon price.

Complaint Item: 5 - New Door knobs are scratched

Investigator’s Observation: In progress work. The Respondent has had a reasonable amount of time to fulfill the contract and should correct/complete by appropriate means at the agreed upon price.

All errors in original.

After the December 14, 2024 deadline for compliance with the Written Directive, Investigator Crosby conducted a Compliance Jobsite Inspection on December 30, 2024, at which both parties were present.

Investigator Crosby’s Compliance Jobsite Inspection Notes indicate the following:

At the CJSI the Respondent advised he was waiting for the Complainant to advise him how he was to proceed. This is not the first complaint the Respondent has had with the ROC and the Respondent is well aware that he needs to contact the ROC or the Investigator is there is a problem with access. This was a directly addressed in the previous complaint where I personally advised the Respondent of the need to contact me when an issue of access is present. Previous case, 2024-07431.

Respondent made no effort to contact the Complainant, the ROC or me, regarding the work compliance work or access issues and will be cited.

Compliance Findings:

No work attempted.

All errors in original.

Thereafter, Investigator Crosby forwarded the Complaint to the Registrar’s Legal Department. The Registrar issued a Citation against Respondent charging possible violations of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(1), A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(a), A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(9)(a), and A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22).

Respondent timely filed a written Answer to the Citation and the matter was referred to the Office of Administrative Hearing, an independent State agency, for an administrative hearing.

Investigator Crosby testified consistently with the findings contained in his Jobsite Inspection notes, the Written Directive, and the Compliance Jobsite Inspection notes. Investigator Crosby testified that he issued a Warning Letter to Respondent for aiding and abetting an unlicensed contractor due to the fact that Respondent hired an unlicensed contractor to perform work to the shower. Investigator Crosby also referenced the photographs he took during the Jobsite Inspection and Compliance Inspection to illustrate the deficiencies in workmanship and the state of the project at the time, which was approximately one year after the parties contracted for the work to be performed. Investigator Crosby testified that at the time of the Compliance Inspection, Respondent admitted that no work was performed after the issuance of the Written Directive. Investigator Crosby testified that it was unreasonable for this project to not have been completed within a year timeframe.

Investigator Crosby testified that Respondent’s license is suspended for non-renewal, however, Respondent was properly licensed at the time it contracted for the project, received payment, and during the time it performed its work, as well as during the Written Directive period.

Complainant testified that Respondent began its work in January 2024, that “nothing” is completed, and that Respondent used three unlicensed contractors on the project. Complainant testified that the entire cabin is only 800 square feet and Respondent was only contracted to perform work to the first floor and the stairs.

Zebula Doll, Respondent’s owner, testified that he does not dispute Investigator Crosby’s or Complainant’s testimony. Mr. Doll testified that he contracted for the project not realizing that it would be so difficult to secure workers in the White Mountains, and that he did not realize he could not use unlicensed workers. Mr. Doll asserted that he believed he could use W-2 employees and “misunderstood that part of the industry.” Mr. Doll testified that he has “no ability to finish” the project and did not renew his license as he does not plan on working in the field of construction. Mr. Doll agreed that the parties’ contract can be considered terminated and he “wants them to get money from the Fund.”

Administrative notice is taken of Respondent’s prior License record on March 19, 2025. Such prior License record reflects that Respondent’s License Number 341999 was first issued on December 1, 2022, and was suspended on January 1, 2025, for non-renewal. Such prior License record also reflects that there are three open complaints, including the instant Complaint, no resolved/settled complaints, and no 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 is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.”

The evidence established that the parties contracted for the project in December 2023, and that by December 2024, Respondent had failed to complete the project, and had admittedly abandoned the project without legal excuse. Therefore, Complainant established that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(1).

The evidence established that Respondent’s work was not in conformity with the Registrar’s standards. Therefore, Complainant established that Respondent did not complete the project in a professional and workmanlike manner in violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(A).

The evidence established that Respondent utilized an unlicensed contractor to perform work on the project. Therefore, Complainant established that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(9)(a).

The evidence established that Respondent did not complete the corrective work following the Written Directive being issued and acknowledged such. Further, Respondent failed to establish any affirmative defense to establish valid justification for such failure. Therefore, Complainant established that Respondent failed to take appropriate corrective action following a Written Directive from the Registrar in violation of A.R.S. § 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 Number 341999 for a period of ten (10) days.

It is further recommended that the Registrar require Respondent to pay the sum of $500.00 as a civil penalty pursuant to A.R.S. § 32-1154(E).

It is further recommended that if Respondent fails to pay the entire amount of the civil penalty on or before thirty (30) 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 A.R.S. § 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, March 31, 2025.

/s/ Sondra J. Vanella

Administrative Law Judge

Transmitted by e-mail to:

Tom Cole

Registrar of Contractors

c/o Legal Department

[email redacted]

Robin DiTolla

[email redacted]

STATE CONSTRUCTION, LLC

[email redacted]

[email redacted]

Miles Crosby

[email redacted]

By: OAH Staff