ALJDEC - Licensing
2024A-13574-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2025-05-28
IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
Leonard M. Lapenson,
COMPLAINANT,
v.
Progressive Painting LLC,
License No. ROC 259555,
RESPONDENT.
No. 2024A-13574-CHC-ROC
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION
HEARING: April 24, 2025
APPEARANCES: Leonard M. Lapenson appeared on his own behalf. Ken and Paula Muhammad represented Progressive Painting LLC. Arizona Registrar of Contractors Investigator Charles Riddlehoover appeared as a witness.
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Kay A. Abramsohn
EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: ROC Notice of Hearing Packet (Packet); Complainants Exhibits 1 through 17. _____________________________________________________________________
FINDINGS OF FACT
Progressive Painting LLC (Respondent) is the holder of License No. 259555, CR-34 Painting & Wall Covering, which was issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (Registrar or ROC) in October 2009.
In May 2024, the parties contracted for exterior and various item(s) painting at Complainant’s home for a total cost of $8,500.00. Work began on June 3, 2024 and was completed on June 5, 2024. The payment for the work was made on June 5, 2024.
On December 13, 2024, the Registrar received a Complaint against Respondent from Complainant alleging multiple items of poor work and abandonment with respect to the project.
The Registrar assigned the Complaint to Investigator Charles Riddlehoover, who performed a jobsite inspection on January 14, 2025 and documented the inspection through 21 photographs.
Respondent did not attend the jobsite inspection.
Inv. Riddlehoover issued a Written Directive on January 22, 2024, which provided in pertinent part 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 Friday, February 7, 2025.
. . .
DIRECTIVE REQUIREMENTS
You are directed to remedy the following violations by the appropriate means:
Complaint Item: 5 - All exterior "Roll-A-Shield" shutters were irreparably damaged by painting them
Investigator’s Observation: During our investigation it was observed that the "Roll-A-Shield" shutters have been painted by the Respondent. Notated in the contract between the Complainant and Respondent "Also paint window covers". 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: 10 - Paint spills were not cleaned up
Investigator’s Observation: Paint splatter and spills observed on the south side of the house near and on pool pump area. 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: 1 - Cheaper SuperPaint initially used (photos available). I complained & it was repainted with contracted Duration paint.
Investigator’s Observation: During our inspection the complaint item had been completed/corrected prior to this JSI.
Governing Rule: Not Applicable
Complaint Item: 2 - Upgrade to include "Rust prohibitor" and "waterproof"
materials were not seen among the other job materials
Investigator’s Observation: Unable to verify, no evidence to prove or
disprove complaint item constitutes poor work.
Governing Rule: Not Applicable
Complaint Item: 3 - Contract included painting entire gazeebo. Foreman
said elevated flooring wasn't done & wasn't an included upgrade
Investigator’s Observation: Complaint item does not implicate a
workmanship issue, but a matter of payment for the services required to
complete the repair.
Governing Rule: Not Applicable
Complaint Item: 4 - Pre-contract, I asked salesman if these were any
additional upgrades that were not included in the contract. He said no
Investigator’s Observation: This is a general statement and does not
implicate a specific workmanship issue. It therefore and cannot be evaluated by the ROC.
Complaint Item: 6 - "Roll-A-Shield" repairman attempted to repair
damaged shutters but was not successful. Cost incurred.
Investigator’s Observation: This is a general statement and does not
implicate a specific workmanship issue. It therefore and cannot be evaluated by the ROC.
Governing Rule: Not Applicable
Complaint Item: 7 - "Roll-A-Shield" repairman reported that a professional painter should have known not to paint them. Documents available
Investigator’s Observation: This is a general statement and does not
implicate a specific workmanship issue. It therefore and cannot be evaluated by the ROC.
Governing Rule: Not Applicable
Complaint Item: 8 - "Roll-A-Shield" provided an estimate for the required
repairs; copy sent to owner. No response received.
Investigator’s Observation: This is a general statement and does not
implicate a specific workmanship issue. It therefore and cannot be evaluated by the ROC.
Governing Rule: Not Applicable
Complaint Item: 9 - Three window sills were left unpainted. Details
available.
Investigator’s Observation: Unable to verify, no evidence to prove
complaint item constitutes poor work due to the shutters not opening on the outside and inaccessible from the inside of the house.
Governing Rule: Not Applicable
Complaint Item: 11 - Multiple requests to return for touch-ups were ignored (text & email copies available)
Investigator’s Observation: This is a general statement and does not
implicate a specific workmanship issue.
Governing Rule: Not Applicable
Complaint Item: 12 - Multiple attempts to resolve problems were ignored
(text & email copies available)
Investigator’s Observation: This is a general statement and does not
implicate a specific workmanship issue.
Governing Rule: Not Applicable
Complaint Item: 13 - Business practices seem to show a pattern of multiple forms of neglect.
Investigator’s Observation: The ROC has no penalties for poor attendance, lack of communication, or poor customer service.
Governing Rule: Not Applicable
Complaint Item: 14 - I want this job completed within professional
standards and to resolve the damages
Investigator’s Observation: This is a general statement and does not
implicate a specific workmanship issue. It therefore and cannot be evaluated by the ROC.
Governing Rule: Not Applicable
On February 10, 2025, Inv. Riddlehoover reached out to Complainant, who advised that there had not been any progress on the project by Respondent during the corrective period. Therefore, Inv. Riddlehooover did not schedule a compliance inspection.
On February 13, 2025, the Registrar issued a Citation against Respondent, charging possible violations of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(a), and A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22).
On February 27, 2025, Respondent submitted an Answer to the Registrar. Respondent indicated that it had an appointment scheduled with Complainant for February 18, 2025 but that Complainant cancelled it on February 17, 2025 due to illness. A subsequent request on February 25, 2025 from Respondent to come to the residence on the next day was declined based on Complainant’s unavailability. Respondent expressed the hope that it could send a team to address Complainant’s concerns.
On March 17, 2025, ROC issued a Notice of Hearing setting a hearing for April 22, 2025, at the Office of Administrative Hearings, an independent state agency.
At hearing, Inv. Riddlehoover testified regarding findings from his inspection, noting that, at the time of the jobsite inspection, multiple complaint items simply could not be verified as workmanship issues. Inv. Riddlehoover noted that, while a contract might call for work to be performed, when that work is done incorrectly or is wrong, that results in a workmanship issue. Inv. Riddlehoover’s understanding was that Complainant had not known that the Roll-A-Shield shutters should not be painted.
At hearing, Complainant argued that a licensed professional painter should have known what could and could not be performed. Complainant recalled a conversation with “Rafael” about the wrong paint having been obtained initially but did not recall any conversation with Rafael about the shutters should not be painted. Complainant argued that Respondent did not respond to his texts about coming back and that Respondent should have come back to do the touch up and clean-up of paint splatters. Complainant had attempted to have the shutters that had not been working repaired but this was unsuccessful and he argued there would be costs to repair the shutters. Complainant also recounted some issues that had arisen regarding items not verified by Inv. Riddlehoover.
At hearing, Respondent argued that Complainant filed the Complaint after the issues with non-working shutters could not be resolved with the shutter company. Mr. Muhammad stated that his worker “Rafael” had called him to discuss the existing condition of the shutters and that he had told Rafael to tell Complainant they “typically” do not paint shutters because shutters have a baked-on finish. Respondent noted they did paint the shutters because Complainant wanted them painted for aesthetic reasons and Respondent argued that only after the shutters were painted and no longer worked did Complainant become remorseful about the shutters having been painted. Respondent indicated there was no way they could have satisfied Complainant regarding the shutters after the painting was done.
Administrative notice is taken of Respondent’s prior License record on May 27, 2025. Such prior License record reflected that Respondent’s License No. 259555 was first issued in October 2009, and further reflected that there was one open case, namely the present case.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
This matter lies within the Registrar’s jurisdiction. See A.R.S. § 32-1101 et seq.
Complainant bears the burden of proof to establish Respondent’s statutory violations by a preponderance of the evidence. See A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2); A.A.C. R2-19-119(A) and A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1); see also Vazzano 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).
The preponderance of the evidence established that Respondent did not perform any additional or corrective work after the Directive was issued. Therefore, while Respondent believed its painting work had been completed per the parties’ contract, the evidence demonstrated that Inv. Riddlehoover verified some corrective work was needed and the evidence demonstrated that such corrective work was neither addressed nor completed by Respondent by the Directive deadline of February 7, 2025. Therefore, the evidence established that Respondent did not correct the verified items and, in that regard, the project was not completed in a workmanlike manner in violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(A).
The evidence established Respondent failed to complete the corrective work following the Directive being issued by the Directive deadline. The hearing record 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 No. 259555 for a period of three 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) for the failure to have corrected the two Directive items.
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 shall 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.
RECOMMENDED this day, May 28, 2025.
/s/ Kay Abramsohn
Administrative Law Judge
Transmitted electronically to:
Tom Cole, Director
Registrar of Contractors
Leonard M Lapenson
7108 N 20th St
Phoenix, AZ 85020
[email redacted]
Progressive Painting LLC
3832 E Illini St
Phoenix, AZ 85040
[email redacted]
Charles Riddlehoover
[email redacted]
By: OAH Staff