ALJDEC - Licensing

2024A-12194-NPC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2025-02-20

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

Vulcan Materials Company,

COMPLAINANT

v.

Platinum Paving Inc.

License No. ROC 340046,

RESPONDENT

No. 2024A-12194-NPC-ROC

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION

HEARING: January 31, 2025 at 10:30am

APPEARANCES: Doug Stevens, on behalf of Complainant; No appearance on behalf of Respondent

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Nicole Robinson

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

_____________________________________________________________________

FINDINGS OF FACT

Platinum Paving, Incorporated (“Respondent”) is the holder of License No. ROC 340046 issued by the Registrar of Contractors (“Registrar”) on August 10, 2022.

Vulcan Materials Company (“Complainant”) conducts business as a cash on delivery (“COD”) business. Complainant supplies construction aggregate materials that are used primarily to lay asphalt for commercial purposes. In the COD process, Complainant only takes credit cards and those cards are preauthorized by Complainant.

On July 19, 2024, Respondent received preauthorization to purchase materials from Complainant. Respondent proceeded to the Flagstaff, Arizona quarry and removed tons of material for its project which was shown through Complainant’s sales and delivery tickets. The materials removed by Respondent created two invoices in the amount of, Invoice #1 - $3,938.37 and Invoice #2 - $7,872.82. The total amount of these invoices calculated to $11,811.19.

On or about July 31, 2024, Complainant charged Respondent’s credit card for the acquired materials. However, these charges were not paid out per a snafu with Respondent’s bank and authorization issues.

On or about October 31, 2024, Complainant filed a Complaint against Respondent with the Registrar alleging that Respondent had failed to pay Complainant the sum of $11,811.19 for construction aggregate materials.

On November 12, 2024, the Registrar issued a Citation to Respondent for alleged violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(10).

The parties were unable to resolve their differences, and Complainant requested an administrative hearing. On December 9, 2024, the Registrar referred the matter to the Office of Administrative Hearings, an independent state agency, for an evidentiary hearing.

On December 20, 2024, the Registrar issued a Notice of Hearing, setting a hearing at 10:30am on January 31, 2025. The Registrar mailed copies of the Notice of Hearing to Respondent at its address and email address of record.

Also, on December 20, 2024, an order was sent to the parties from the Office of Administrative Hearings that advised the parties how to connect to the hearing via Google Meet.

The hearing was held via Google Meet on January 31, 2025 at 10:30am. Respondent did not request that the hearing be continued. Although the start of the hearing was delayed approximately fifteen minutes, Respondent did not appear through an authorized member, employee, or attorney. Consequently, Respondent did not present any testimonial evidence to defend its license.

Hearing evidence

Mr. Doug Stevens testified that the total due to Complainant was $11,811.19 and that Respondent made no attempt to pay what was owed to Complainant.

On November 26, 2024, Mr. Mark Stanley on behalf of Respondent wrote an emailed Answer to the Registrar which stated the following:

To whom it may concern regarding this complaint, this company had originally been paid. They closed out my credit card later than the bank allows, which put my account in a negative balance, my bank without my knowledge put a hold on those funds and just released them back to me last week. I will follow up with a letter from my bank in the next Email...I’m waiting for this matter to get resolved, thank you.”

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

The burden of proof at an administrative hearing falls to the party asserting a claim, right, or entitlement and the standard of proof on all issues in these matters is 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.”

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(10) includes among the grounds for suspension, revocation, or other disciplinary action against a contractor’s license,

[f]ailure by a licensee or agent or official of a licensee to pay monies in excess of $750 when due for materials or services rendered in connection with the licensee's operations as a contractor unless the licensee proves that the licensee lacks the capacity to pay and has not received sufficient monies as payment for the particular construction work project or operation for which the services or materials were rendered or purchased.

In this case, the evidence established that Respondent owed a total of $11,811.19 for construction aggregate materials.

Respondent provided in its Answer the mishap that occurred with the payment it made and its banking institution that returned the monies. It appears that Respondent was going to get the matter resolved, however, Complainant has received no communications from Respondent in regards to paying it for the materials. As such, Respondent failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that it lacked the ability to pay Complainant for the work performed.

Therefore, Complainant established that Respondent violated Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(10) by failing to pay Complainant $11,811.19 for materials purchased in connection with Respondent’s paving business.

Based upon Respondent’s violation of the provisions of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(10), grounds exist to impose discipline against Respondent’s license

RECOMMENDed order

Based on the foregoing,

It is Recommended that the Registrar suspend Respondent’s License No. ROC 340046 issued by the Registrar until it has provided to the Registrar, and the Registrar has accepted, documents that establish that it has paid Complainant $11,811.19 in certified funds.

It is Further Recommended that when and if the Registrar receives and accepts Respondent’s evidence that it has paid Complainant $11,811.19 in certified funds, the Registrar may close the Complaint in Case No. 2024A-12194.

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 20, 2025.

/s/ Nicole Robinson

Administrative Law Judge

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

Tom Cole, Director

Registrar of Contractors

Mark Reardon

[email redacted]

Vulcan Materials Company

[email redacted]

Platinum Paving Inc.

[email redacted]

By: OAH Staff