ALJDEC - Licensing

2025A-00099-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2025-07-07

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

Blue Sky Design and Build LLC,

COMPLAINANT,

v.

Daniel Joseph O’ Connor

DBA: DOC Welding and Fab

License No. ROC 339199,

RESPONDENT.

No. 2025A-00099-CHC-ROC

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION

HEARING: June 16, 2025 at 1:00pm

APPEARANCES: Michael Peters on behalf of Complainant Blue Sky Design and Build LLC. Daniel O’Connor on behalf of Respondent DOC Welding & Fab. Investigator Cliff Corlett on behalf of the Arizona Registrar of Contractors.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Nicole Robinson

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

_____________________________________________________________________

FINDINGS OF FACT

Daniel Joseph O’Connor DBA: DOC Welding and Fab (“Respondent”) is the holder of License No. ROC 339199 issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (“Registrar”).

On or about September 26, 2024, Blue Sky Design and Build LLC (“Complainant”) entered into a contract with Respondent to, among other things, fabricate and install wrought iron fencing and a gate to a residential home located in Lake Havasu City, Arizona.

On or about January 3, 2025, the Registrar received a Complaint against Respondent from Complainant alleging job abandonment with respect to the project.

The Registrar assigned the complaint to Investigator Cliff Corlett. On January 22, 2025, a jobsite inspection took place with both parties present. On January 23, 2025, Investigator Corlett issued a Written Directive to Respondent 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 or before Feb 7, 2025.

. . . .

DIRECTIVE REQUIREMENTS

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

Complaint Item: 1 – Wrought Iron Fence was sub contracted. Sub- Contractor took deposit and has not done the work and will not return deposit. I sub contracted a wrought iron fence for a customer I was doing some other work for.

Daniel Oconnor DOC Welding is a sub-contractor I have used in the past for other projects.

He provided a proposal for the work to be performed and I paid him a deposit of $21,700.00 on September 26th 2024. This project was to be completed in 8 weeks.

Investigator’s Observation: Respondent and Complainant entered into an agreement for the fabrication and installation of wrought iron fencing at 4041 Vega Dr. Lake Havasu City, AZ 86404. No fencing has been delivered or installed. RESPONDENT SHOULD FABRICATE AND INSTALL FENCING AS CONTRACTED.

Governing Rule: Abandonment of a contract or refusal to perform after submitting a bid on work without legal excuse for the abandonment or refusal. A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(1)

Following the issuance of the Written Directive, Respondent did not conduct any work on the project. After the deadline in the directive expired, Investigator Corlett was notified no corrective work had been performed.

On February 14, 2025, Michael Peters, on behalf of Complainant, informed Investigator Corlett that no work was performed nor were there any settlement offers made. As such, Investigator Corlett did not perform a Compliance Inspection and detailed that information in his Compliance Notes. In addition, he notated – “Compliance Findings: Respondent is not in Compliance.”

On February 19, 2025, the Registrar issued a Citation against Respondent, charging possible violations of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(1) and Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(22).

Hearing Evidence

Mr. Peters is the owner of Blue Sky Design & Build LLC. Mr. Peters testified that Complainant was contracted with client (“Client”) for a backyard project. This Client wanted a fence built and Mr. Peters reached out to Respondent to perform the fence work. Respondent agreed to the fabrication and installation of a wrought iron fence and gate on or about September 26, 2024. Mr. Peters testified that Client paid Complainant a deposit of $21,700.00 for the fence work with an estimated completion date in eight weeks. Mr. Peters gave that money to Respondent to start on the fabrication. Mr. Peters constantly asked Daniel O’Connor, Qualifying Party, on behalf of Respondent Doc Welding & Fab, when work would begin. Mr. Peters testified that Mr. O’Connor told him Respondent’s truck broke down and they had other work which caused delays at Client’s project. Mr. Peters further testified that Mr. O’Connor committed to the fence and gate being installed before Christmas, however, that did not happen. Client canceled his contact with Complainant in regards to the fence project and he requested his deposit back since no work had been done.

Mr. Peters testified that Respondent could not pay him back so he borrowed the money with a 9% interest rate and paid Client the deposit back. Mr. Peters testified that Respondent paid him $3,494.66 on February 20, 2025 and argued that he was still owed $18,205.34. Mr. Peters stated that he attempted a payment plan with Respondent, but Complainant was not paid any more money.

Mr. O’Connor testified that he underbid a few projects, went “in a hole,” and began to experience issues with his license. Mr. O’Connor testified that he wire transferred $20,357.34 to Complainant on or about March 3, 2025. Unfortunately, two days later, there were insufficient funds and the check bounced. Mr. O’Connor testified that he would “figure it out one way or another.”

Administrative notice is taken of Respondent’s prior License record on June 16, 2025. Such prior License record reflects that Respondent’s License No. ROC 339199 was first issued on July 6, 2022, and is Revoked, as a result of discipline. The Revoked status went into effect on June 9, 2025. Such prior License record also reflects that there was one other open complaint and no other complaints resulting in discipline against Respondent’s license.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

This matter lies within the Registrar’s jurisdiction.

Respondent’s revoked license does not deprive Complainant of its right to prosecute its complaint or prevent the Registrar from determining the merits of the complaint.

Complainant bears the burden of proof to establish Respondent’s statutory violations by a preponderance of the evidence. A preponderance of the evidence means “[p]roof which leads the trier of fact to find that the existence of the contested fact is more probable than its nonexistence.”

In this case, the evidence established that Respondent submitted a bid for Complainant’s project and did not perform the work in the bid. Accordingly, Complainant established that Respondent abandoned the contract and failed to complete the project in a professional and workmanlike manner in violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(1).

Furthermore, the evidence established that Respondent did not attempt to complete the corrective work following the Directive being issued. Therefore, Complainant established that Respondent failed to take appropriate corrective action following a written directive from the Registrar in violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 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. ROC 339199 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 Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 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 Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 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 7, 2025.

/s/ Nicole Robinson

Administrative Law Judge

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

Tom Cole, Director

Registrar of Contractors

Blue Sky Design and Build LLC

[email redacted]

Daniel Joseph Oconnor

DOC Welding and Fab

[email redacted]

Cliff Corlett

Registrar of Contractors

[email redacted]

By: OAH Staff