ALJDEC - Licensing

2024A-13517-NPC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2025-04-07

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

Simply Perfect Garage Door, LLC

COMPLAINANT,

v.

Micela Properties, Inc.

License No. ROC 202053,

RESPONDENT.

No. 2024A-13517-NPC-ROC

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION

HEARING: March 17, 2025

APPEARANCES: Javier Chavez appeared on behalf of Simply Perfect Garage Door, LLC (hereinafter “Complainant”). Luigi Micela appeared on behalf of Micela Properties, Inc. (hereinafter “Respondent”).

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Velva Moses-Thompson

_____________________________________________________________________

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. On December 11, 2024, Complainant filed a complaint with the Arizona Registrar of Contractors, (hereinafter “Registrar”), alleging that Respondent failed to pay Complainant a total of $36,389.00 “when due for material or services rendered in connection with Respondent’s operations as a contractor”.

2. Through the complaint, Complainant alleged that Respondent failed to pay the following invoices:

Invoice #1511, in the amount of $2,675.00, for work performed at the Luigi Condo on Eagle Crest Drive.

Invoice #1249, in the amount of $1,820.00, for work performed at the Luigi Villa 30 on East Lincoln Drive.

Invoice #1714, in the amount of $8,476.00, for work performed at the Luigi Micela Lot 30 in Mesa, AZ.

Invoice #1808, in the amount of $23,418.00, for work performed at the Luigi Lot 2 in Mesa, AZ.

3. On January 7, 2025, the Registrar issued a Citation against Respondent’s license, alleging that Respondent violated Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(10).

4. Respondent filed a timely answer to the complaint.

5. The matter was referred to the Office of Administrative Hearings for an evidentiary hearing.

6. A hearing was held on March 17, 2025.

7. At hearing, Javier Sanchez, the owner of Complainant, testified on behalf of Complainant. Luigi Micela, the owner of Respondent, testified on behalf of Respondent.

Testimony of Javier Chavez

8. Mr. Chavez testified to the effect that Complainant completed the work described in Invoice #1511, Invoice #1249, Invoice #1714, and Invoice #1808.

Mr. Chavez stated that a bobcat damaged one of the panels and that he did not know how all of the panels were damaged.

9. Mr. Chavez did not dispute that Respondent paid Complainant for construction performed at Lot 30 in Mesa, AZ. Mr. Chavez explained that Invoice #1714 was for the replacement of broken glass after initial construction of Lot 30.

Testimony of Luigi Micela

10. Respondent paid Complainant in full to perform construction at Lot 30 in Mesa, AZ, in 2022. After Complainant completed construction, the glass door panels broke and Complainant replaced the glass. Respondent issued Invoice #1714 to Respondent for the replacements. However, the glass was under warranty and Respondent never agreed to pay Invoice #1714.

11. Respondent paid another contractor to repair broken glass and adjust a door after the construction of Lot 30, for $5,500.00.

12. Complainant did not finish the job in Invoice #1249.

13. Regarding invoice #1511, the door never operated correctly. The door slammed too hard and it was difficult to open. Respondent contacted Complainant several times to repair the door, however, Complainant never made any corrections. Complainant has a bill in the amount of $1,500 to repair the door in Invoice #1511.

14. Respondent paid Complainant a deposit for the work described in Invoice #1808. However, Respondent became involved in a legal dispute with the owner and told Complainant to stop work. The job was canceled. However, Mr. Micela believes that Complainant formed his own contract with the owner and completed the project.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. This matter lies within the Registrar’s jurisdiction.

2. A party asserting a claim, right, or entitlement bears the burden of proof; a

party asserting an affirmative defense has the burden of establishing the affirmative defense. The standard of proof on all issues in this matter is that of a preponderance of the evidence. Ariz. Admin. Code § R2-19-119.

3. A preponderance of the evidence is:

The greater weight of the evidence, not necessarily established by the greater number of witnesses testifying to a fact but by evidence that has the most convincing force; superior evidentiary weight that, though not sufficient to free the mind wholly from all reasonable doubt, is still sufficient to incline a fair and impartial mind to one side of the issue rather than the other.

Black’s Law Dictionary 1373 (10th ed. 2014).

4. Statutes should be interpreted to provide a fair and sensible result.

Gutierrez v. Industrial Commission of Arizona, 226 Ariz. 395, 249 P.3d 1095 (2011)(citation omitted); State v. McFall, 103 Ariz. 234, 238, 439 P.2d 805, 809 (1968) ("Courts will not place an absurd and unreasonable construction on statutes.")

5. “Statutes shall be liberally construed to effect their objects and to

promote justice.” Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 1-211(B).

6. The Administrative Law Judge may consider the Registrar’s administrative

record. See A.A.C. R4-9-118.

7. The purpose of the Registrar’s licensing statutes is to protect the public from unscrupulous, unqualified, and financially irresponsible contractors. See Aesthetic Property Maintenance v. Capital Indem. Corp., 183 Ariz. 74, 900 P. 2d 1210 (1995).

8. Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A) provides that:

The holder of a license or any person listed on a license pursuant to this chapter shall not commit any of the following acts or omissions: .... 10. Failure by a licensee or agent or official of a licensee to pay monies in excess of seven hundred fifty dollars when due for materials or services rendered in connection with the licensee's operations as a contractor when the licensee has the capacity to pay or, if the licensee lacks the capacity to pay, when the licensee has received sufficient monies as payment for the particular construction work project or operation for which the services or materials were rendered or purchased.

9. Upon consideration of the evidence presented at hearing, the Administrative Law Judge concludes that Complainant provided insufficient evidence to establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, that payment became due in the amount of $2,675.00 for Invoice #1511, and in the amount of $1,820.00 for Invoice #1249. Additionally, Complainant provided insufficient evidence to establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Respondent was obligated to pay Respondent $8,476.00 for Invoice #1714 and $23,418.00 for Invoice #1808.

10. Accordingly, Complainant has failed to meet its burden to show that Respondent violated Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(10) as alleged.

ORDER

IT IS ORDERED that the Citation and Complaint in Case No. 2024A-13517 is 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, April 7, 2025.

/s/ Velva Moses-Thompson

Administrative Law Judge

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

Tom Cole, Director

Registrar of Contractors

Micela Properties Inc.

[email redacted]

Simply Perfect Garage Door LLC

[email redacted]

By: OAH Staff