ALJDEC - Licensing
2025A-00395-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2025-05-13
IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
Jay Curtis
COMPLAINANT,
v.
Pearl Epoxy Flooring LLC
License No. ROC 329913
RESPONDENT.
No. 2025A-00395-CHC-ROC
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION
HEARING: May 5, 2025
APPEARANCES: Jay Curtis (hereinafter “Complainant”) appeared on behalf of himself. Robert Lubanko appeared on behalf of Pearl Epoxy Flooring, LLC (hereinafter “Respondent”).
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Velva Moses-Thompson
_____________________________________________________________________
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. On April 25, 2024, Respondent agreed to resurface the driveway of Complainant’s home for the amount of $21,125.00. Complainant paid Respondent $16,500.00 for the work.
2. Respondent started construction on June 3, 2024. Respondent last performed work at Complainant’s home on June 17, 2024.
3. On or about January 13, 2025, Complainant filed a complaint with the Registrar of Contractors (hereinafter “Registrar” or “ROC”) alleging poor workmanship on the part of Respondent.
4. The Registrar assigned the complaint to one of its investigators, Robert Di Alto (hereinafter “Investigator Di Alto”).
5. On February 5, 2025, Investigator Di Alto conducted an initial job-site inspection.
6. On February 10, 2025, the ROC issued a Directive to Respondent directing Respondent to correct Complaint Items 1 and 2 by appropriate means, no later than February 28, 2025. The February 10, 2025 Directive provided, in relevant part, as follows:
.....................................
Complaint Item: 1 - surface has grind marks, rock pops & pealing off joints filled & cut crooked cracks repaired incorrectly
Investigator’s Observation: Verified. I observed coating that appears to be
cracking, peeling and chipped/spalled at several areas of the driveway. Control joints are poorly covered with recoating materials, and do not appear to be professionally done. There are multiple areas where runs and puddling of material are visible. Grind marks are present in several locations, and the existing concrete drive way is visible. I was the Investigator that performed the prior BCP performed on 07/11/2024, and I advised the Respondent that if a formal complaint was filed by the Complainant, that it was likely that a written directive would be issued for poor workmanship. The Respondent agreed that the work was substandard and stated that they would address the issues in the fall/winter when cooler weather permitted. The Respondent shall correct by the appropriate means.
Governing Rule: Workmanship Rule: ARS §32-1154 (A) (3), namely R4-9-108,
Poor work not performed in accordance with professional industry standards.
Complaint Item: 2 - sewer cleanouts covered
Investigator’s Observation: Verified. I observed what appeared to be plumbing
cleanouts (quantity of 2) that were covered with driveway coating and were not
accessible for servicing. The Respondent shall correct by the appropriate means.
Governing Rule: Workmanship Rule: ARS §32-1154 (A) (3), namely R4-9-108,
Poor work not performed in accordance with professional industry standards. .....................................
7. Respondent did not correct Complaint Items 1 and 2 by the due date.
8. On March 5, 2025, the ROC issued a Citation against Respondent’s license for alleged violations of Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) § 32-1154(A)(3) and (22); A.A.C. R4-9-108(A).
9. Respondent filed a timely answer to the Citation.
10. The matter was referred to the Office of Administrative Hearings for an evidentiary hearing.
11. At hearing, Complainant presented the testimony of his wife, Pamela Curtis. Robert Lubanko testified on behalf of Respondent.
12. Pamela Curtis explained that Respondent performed poor work when it resurfaced her driveway. Mr. Lubanko stated that he does not expect Complainant to accept the driveway. Mr. Lubanko explained that he was experiencing health challenges during the project. Mr. Lubanko also stated that his “guys” did not want to work for Mrs. Curtis because she was too involved in the project and always “pointed over their shoulders.”
13. Administrative notice is taken of the Registrar’s public website. According to the information available on the website on May 13, 2025, Respondent’s license was first issued on July 27, 2020, and is active. Such prior License record also shows that there are two open complaints against Respondent. Respondent’s license has never been disciplined.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
This matter lies within the ROC’s jurisdiction. See A.R.S. § 32-1101 et seq.
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. See A.A.C. R2-19-119.
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).
4. The Administrative Law Judge may consider the ROC’s administrative record. See A.A.C. R4-9-118.
5. The preponderance of the evidence shows that Respondent did not perform the work in a professional and workmanlike manner in violation of A.A.C. R4-9-108(A), and thereby of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3).
6. The preponderance of the evidence shows that Respondent was not justified in failing to timely comply with the Directive, which is a 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 Pearl Epoxy Flooring LLC’s license number 329913 for three days. It is further recommended that the Registrar require Respondent to pay the sum of $250.00 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)(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.
Done this day, May 13, 2025.
/s/ Velva Moses-Thompson
Administrative Law Judge
Transmitted by either mail, e-mail, or facsimile to:
Tom Cole, Director
Registrar of Contractors
Jay Curtis
[email redacted]
Pearl Epoxy Flooring LLC
[email redacted]
By: OAH Staff