ALJDEC - Licensing

2024A-13885-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2025-07-17

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

Lydia Lozoya ,

COMPLAINANT

MUD Epoxy LLC,

License No. ROC 353807,

RESPONDENT

No. 2024A-13885-CHC-ROC

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION

HEARING: June 27, 2025

APPEARANCES: Complainant Lydia Lozoya appeared on her own behalf. Arizona Registrar of Contractors Investigator Greg Johndrow appeared as a witness. Respondent MUD Epoxy LLC did not appear.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Kay Abramsohn

EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: ROC Notice of Hearing Packet (Packet).

FINDINGS OF FACT

MUD Epoxy LLC (Respondent) is the holder of License No. 353807, Dual CR-34 Painting and Wall Cevering, issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (Registrar or ROC) in August 2024.

On or about December 21, 2024, the Registrar received a Licensed Complaint Form (Complaint) against Respondent. The Complaint alleged poor work Respondent with regard to chips and epoxy failures. The Complaint stated that, on February 11, 2023, the parties entered into a contract for coatings for $947.00.

The Registrar assigned the Complaint to Investigator Greg Johndrow.

On April 4, 2025, Inv. Johndrow conducted a Jobsite Inspection and took 44 photographs.

On March 7, 2025, Inv. Johndrow issued a Written Directive for Respondent to complete corrective work by April 28, 2025, In pertinent part, the Directive stated as follows:

DIRECTIVE REQUIREMENTS

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

Complaint Item 1: “The chips from Ramada and back porch are chipping off and cracking and the epoxy in the front bubbled up and is cracking and doesn't match the rest of the area”

Investigator’s Observations: Verified. The coating in and around the Ramada and back porch was observed with chipping and cracking of the finish. The section refinished in the front of the residence was observed with bubbling/blistering, cracking and the color does not match the adjoining areas, previously coated by the respondent.

Governing Rule: A.R.S. § 32-1154 (A)(3) - R4-9-108(a): Violation of any rule adopted by the registrar; Namely R 4-9-108(a) A contractor shall perform work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

Complaint Item 2: “By back porch chips are chipping off and the Ramada area and the front bubbled up and doesn't match the rest of the area”

Governing Rule: A.R.S. § 32-1154 (A)(3) - R4-9-108(a): Violation of any rule adopted by the registrar; Namely R 4-9-108(a) A contractor shall perform work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

Complaint Item 3: “The Ramada is also chipping off and cracking and discolored” Investigator’s Observations: Verified. The coating in and around the Ramada was observed with chipping, cracking and a discoloring variation of the finish.

Governing Rule: A.R.S. § 32-1154 (A)(3) - R4-9-108(a): Violation of any rule adopted by the registrar; Namely R 4-9-108(a) A contractor shall perform work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

Complaint Item 4: “I have discovered that my drains have become clogged as a direct result of the materials and methods used during his work.”

Investigator’s Observations: Verified. The drains are clogged and have been coated with epoxy. The respondent confirmed at the time of the inspection that the epoxy coating had entered the drains during the project.

Governing Rule: A.R.S. § 32-1154 (A)(3) - R4-9-108(a): Violation of any rule adopted by the registrar; Namely R 4-9-108(a) A contractor shall perform work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

On May 2, 2025, the Registrar issued a Citation against Respondent charging possible violations of:

Charge :1 A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) - R4-9-108(a)

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.

Charge :2 A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22)

Failure to take appropriate corrective action to comply with this chapter or with rules adopted pursuant to this chapter without valid justification within a reasonable period of time after receiving a written directive from the Registrar. The written directive shall set forth the time within which the contractor is to complete the remedial action. The time permitted for compliance shall not be less than fifteen days from the date of issuance of the directive. A license shall not be revoked or suspended nor shall any other penalty be imposed for a violation of this paragraph until after a hearing has been held.

Respondent filed an Answer to the Citation on May 16, 2025, indicating it believed Complainant had “declined to honor the product warranty” and, therefore, Respondent was “no longer liable to comply with this directive.”

The Registrar subsequently referred the matter to the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH), an independent State agency, for an evidentiary hearing and issued a Notice of Hearing.

On May 28, 2025, OAH issued an ORDER advising the parties how to connect to the hearing via Google Meet.

On the date and at the time set for the continued hearing, Respondent did not appear through an authorized member, employee, or attorney. Respondent did not request that the hearing be continued. Because Respondent failed to appear, Respondent did not present any evidence to defend its license.

Inv. Johndrow testified regarding the background in this matter. Inv. Johndrow explained Respondent had accepted the surface on which he applied the coatings and, therefore, was responsible. Inv. Johndrow did not receive contact from the Respondent prior to the Directive deadline and, therefore, he gave no extension of time to Respondent to complete the work by a later deadline.

Complainant testified that she chose a color that did not turn out the way she wanted and Respondent applied a different color (for an additional cost). Complainant testified that she had asked him to mask of her drains and he said he couldn’t but she told him to figure it out. Complainant testified that the coating faded and was chipping and Respondent then told her that coating was not good if placed in a location in the sun. Complainant indicated that Respondent had come out several times before she filed the complaint to try and remedy some issues, but had not been successful in the attempted repairs and/or re-coatings. Complainant indicated that, one of those times, Respondent told her the covering she picked, which he had used, was for indoors and not outdoors.

Administrative notice is taken of Respondent’s License record on July 16, 2025. There is one open case, which is the instant matter.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

The copy of the Notice of Hearing that the Registrar mailed to Respondent at its address and email address of record was reasonable; the same address and others as found within the administrative record were utilized by OAH to communicate with Respondent. Respondent is deemed to have received notice of the hearing and of the GOOGLE link regarding the hearing. A.R.S. §§ 41-1092.04 and 41-1092.05(D).

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. R-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 evidence of record established that Respondent’s work was not in conformity with the Registrar’s standards in that Respondent failed to complete the work for which it responsible in a professional manner. Therefore, Complainant established that Respondent was in violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3).

The evidence of record established that Respondent’s work was not in conformity with the Registrar’s standards in that Respondent’s work fell below workmanship standards and caused additional damage to Complainant’s drainage system. Therefore, Complainant established that Respondent failed to take appropriate corrective action to comply with this chapter or with rules adopted pursuant to this chapter without valid justification within a reasonable period of time after receiving 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 Registrar’s Order, the Registrar shall suspend Respondent’s License No. 353807 for rive business 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 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)(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, July 17, 2025.

/s/ Kay Abramsohn

Administrative Law Judge

Transmitted electronically to:

Tom Cole, Director

Registrar of Contractors

Gregory Johndrow

[email redacted]

Lydia Lozoya

4449 S Paseo Don Rolando

Tucson, AZ 85746

[email redacted]

MUD Epoxy LLC,

9692 E Belasco Lp

Tucson, AZ 85748

[email redacted]

By: OAH Staff