ALJDEC - Licensing

2025A-01747-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2025-07-14

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

Jean Pelkey,

COMPLAINANT

v.

Navarro's Outdoor Environments, LLC

License No. ROC 328497,

RESPONDENT

No. 2025A-01747-CHC-ROC

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION

HEARING: June 30, 2025

APPEARANCES: Complainant Jean Pelkey appeared on her own behalf via Google Meet. Oscar Navarro appeared via Google Meet on behalf of Respondent Navarro’s Outdoor Environments, LLC. Registrar of Contractors Investigator Todd Anderson appeared via Google Meet.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Adam D. Stone

EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: Complainant’s Exhibits 1-13 were admitted into evidence.

_____________________________________________________________________

FINDINGS OF FACT

Navarro’s Outdoor Environments, LLC (Respondent) was the holder of License No. 328497 issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (Registrar).

On or about October 1, 2022, Complainant hired Respondent to remodel her backyard including installing a pool at her home in Phoenix, Arizona.

On or about February 18, 2025, the Registrar received a Complaint against Respondent from Complainant alleging poor work with respect to project.

The Registrar assigned the complaint to Investigator Todd Anderson. The jobsite inspection was performed on March 25, 2025. Investigator Anderson noted the following in pertinent part:

Jobsite General Notes:

Respondent was not present at JSI (Licensed Revoked)

This does not appear to be the Complainants primary residence.

The original complaint (#2023-08480) was dismissed by Investigator Grimm due to insufficient evidence (work in progress) but noted that the person who filed the original complaint (Karen Seemeyer) was the designer and not the Property Owner. She works for Jean Pelkey (actual property owner). She was acting as a UL at that time. All payments to the Respondent were made through Rancho Deluxe Renovations LLC (Karen Seemeyer’s business). She had also stated to the Investigator on September 8th, 2023 during a phone conversation that she did not want the Contractor back on the property (Termination). No termination letter was apparently sent to the Respondent.

The 2nd complaint (#2025-01002) was filed as a UL but was also dismissed. Reason for Dismissal: Not the Property Owner.

The property owner subsequently filed this complaint with some additional items added.

DIRECTIVE REQUIREMENTS

Complaint Item: 1 - Paver Installation was not complete - Concrete in areas was not removed around edges.

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. At the time of the Jobsite Inspection conducted on March 25th, 2025, the property owner directed me to a section of the original pool decking which had not yet been removed. Artificial Turf was to be placed in that area.

Governing Rule: ARS 32-1154(A)(2)(a) Plans and Specifications

Complaint Item: 6 - BBQ - Plan called for appliances to be included but he did not.

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. The contract included a 32” Stainless Steel NG Grill, Standard Outdoor Mini Fridge, and Stainless Steel 30” access doors. At the time of the Jobsite Inspection, I did not observe any of the above mentions appliances in the backyard.

Governing Rule: ARS 32-1154(A)(2)(a) Plans and Specifications

Complaint Item: 7 - BBQ - There was no electrical....

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. I did not observe either metal or rigid

PVC electrical piping inside the BBQ. Contract called for (4) GFCI protected

power outlets.

Governing Rule: ARS 32-1154(A)(2)(a) Plans and Specifications

Complaint Item: 8A - BBQ - what plumbing was installed leaked at the BBQ backwall.

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. The Property Owner turned on the service line located at the side of the residence. I did observe a leak at the 3⁄4” piping located inside the BBQ.

Governing Rule: ARS 32-1154(A)(3) – R4-9-108(a) Poor workmanship

Complaint Item: 8B - BBQ - Countertop not finished.

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. The contract called for the

installation of an Ivory or Walnut Travertine countertop. The countertop

observed was bare, smooth concrete.

Governing Rule: ARS 32-1154(A)(2)(a) Plans and Specifications

Complaint Item: 14 - Gates - Interior back gate was completely torn down

on both sides.

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. The Contractor would presumably be required to remove either sections of walls or columns in order to create

accessibility for their heavy equipment. The gate column was removed. The

footing were observed just below the surface.

Governing Rule: ARS 32-1154(A)(3) – R4-9-108(a) Poor workmanship

Complaint Item: 15 - Back yard was full of debris.

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. There were piles of construction

debris observed within the backyard.

Governing Rule: ARS 32-1154(A)(3) – R4-9-108(a) Poor workmanship...

(All errors contained in the original).

On April 15, 2025, the Registrar issued a Citation against Respondent, charging possible violations of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(1); A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(2)(a); and A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(A).

On or about April 30, 2025, Respondent submitted an Answer to the Registrar.

On or about May 13, 2025, a Notice of Hearing was issued setting a hearing on June 30, 2025, at the Office of Administrative Hearings, an independent state agency.

At hearing, Investigator Anderson testified as to the Registrar’s involvement and the above timeline and findings.

Investigator Anderson testified that Respondent was not present at the Jobsite Inspection, as his license had been previously revoked. Too, because of this, Investigator Anderson testified that there was no Written Directive to complete the work or in the alternative, to come to some financial settlement with Complainant. While Mr. Anderson testified that he later learned that a Written Directive should have been issued, Respondent knew about the Complaint and there was no record of a settlement in this matter.

Ms. Pelkey testified that work had been progressing until it seemed to slow down in February 2023. Ms. Pelkey testified further that Respondent had promised the pool and outdoor kitchen area to be completed by the July 4th holiday. Ms. Pelkey testified that while the pool was completed, the outdoor kitchen area was not.

In addition, Ms. Pelkey testified that the last contact she had with Respondent was on June 26, 2023.

Mr. Navarro testified that he was ordered to stop by Ms. Seemeyer to stop work on the project in June 2023. Mr. Navarro testified that also around that same time, his business was experiencing tough times due to the ongoing COVID pandemic and he was not being paid on other jobs which, in turn, caused problems for his business. While Mr. Navarro maintained he did not abandon the job, he testified that the countertops in the kitchen area were a deviation from the original plan and that no change order had been signed. He also testified that it was not sealed because that would happen at the end of the project.

Administrative notice was taken of Respondent’s prior License record on July 14, 2025. Such prior License record reflected that Respondent’s License No. 328497 was first issued on April 15, 2020, and reflected that there was one open case, namely the present case, and one disciplined case. The License record also reflected that Respondent’s license was revoked as of March 11, 2024.

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 abandoned the project in violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(1), as of June 2023, Respondent had a valid license and provided no legal justification for his failure to perform on the contract.

The preponderance of the evidence established that Respondent abandoned the project in violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(2)(a), as the paver installation, and the outdoor kitchen area was no completed per the plans.

Finally, the preponderance of the evidence established there was a violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(A), as there was leaking plumbing at the backwall of the outdoor kitchen, the gate column was removed on the interior back gate, and the yard was filled with construction debris.

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Based on the foregoing, it is recommended that on the effective date of the Order, the Registrar shall revoke Respondent’s License No. 328497.

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 14, 2025.

/s/ Adam D. Stone

Administrative Law Judge

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

Tom Cole, Director

Registrar of Contractors

Jean Pelkey

[email redacted]

Navarro's Outdoor Environments, LLC

[email redacted]

By: OAH Staff