ALJDEC - Licensing

2025A-02916-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2025-08-18

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

Ellen Emory-Jackson,

COMPLAINANT

v.

Quick Restore LLC,

License No. ROC 345010,

RESPONDENT

No. 2025A-02916-CHC-ROC

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION

HEARING: August 4, 2025

APPEARANCES: Complainant Ellen Emory-Jackson appeared on her own behalf. Respondent Quick Restore LLC was represented by Ryan Sandstrom who appeared via Google Meet. Registrar of Contractors Investigator David Cooke appeared via Google Meet.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Adam D. Stone

EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: Respondent’s Exhibits 1-7.

_____________________________________________________________________

FINDINGS OF FACT

Quick Restore LLC (Respondent) is the holder of License No. 345010 issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (Registrar).

On or about September 1, 2023, Complainant hired Respondent to repair a broken pipe and the resultant damage in her bathroom at her home in Tucson, Arizona.

On or about March 25, 2025, the Registrar received a Complaint against Respondent from Complainant alleging poor work with respect to project.

The Registrar assigned the complaint to Investigator David Cooke. The jobsite inspection was performed on April 14, 2025.

Investigator Cooke then issued a Written Directive on or about April 16, 2025, 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 Monday, May 5, 2025.

. . .

DIRECTIVE REQUIREMENTS

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

Complaint Item: 3 - H bath not fixed as I was told they would do

Investigator’s Observation: The hall bathroom had multiple drywall patches, partially completed by a subcontractor that the respondent sent out. The respondent claims that his employees removed these walls by accident which resulted in a subcontractor being hired to perform the repairs. The respondent took responsibility for these unnecessary cuts as well as for the poorly done patches. At the jobsite inspection, The respondent requested to meet with the complainant outside of the ROC process to discuss compensation for the poorly done drywall patches. The drywall patches should be corrected by 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 - M bath torn apart for no reason per insurance. Josh admitted to their mistake

Investigator’s Observation: At the jobsite meeting, the complainant showed the master bathroom to be fully demolished. Per the respondent, the bathroom walls, previously covered in tile and granite slabs, were removed by the respondent to remediate mold and asbestos per contract. The respondent referred to the hall bath when admitting to the mistake made. The respondent claims that employees removed more than necessary in the hall bath and had since sent out a subcontractor to patch the wrongful drywall cuts. The removal of master bathroom walls was done per contract. Payment from the insurance company, for the additional work, is not within the jurisdiction of the ROC. No correction required by the respondent.

Governing Rule: Not Applicable

Complaint Item: 2 - M bath left completely demolished

Investigator’s Observation: The complainant was not able to provide any

documentation that indicated the remodeling of the master bathroom after

demolition. The contract submitted was strictly for remediation of mold and

asbestos. The complainant mentioned that she assumed restoration was to be completed based on the company's name and because the plumber (separate entity), that was used by the complainant, claimed that the respondent would take care of all items . The respondent denies any claims of remodeling. Unable to verify any additional work was required to be performed.

Governing Rule: Not Applicable...

On May 8, 2025, Investigator Cooke conducted a Compliance Jobsite Inspection, and noted the following:

Compliance Findings:

Complaint Item: 3 - H bath not fixed as I was told they would do

Investigator’s Initial Observation: The hall bathroom had multiple drywall patches, partially completed by a subcontractor that the respondent sent out. The respondent claims that his employees removed these walls by accident which resulted in a subcontractor being hired to perform the repairs. The respondent took responsibility for these unnecessary cuts as well as for the poorly done patches. At the jobsite inspection, The respondent requested to meet with the complainant outside of the ROC process to discuss compensation for the poorly done drywall patches. The drywall patches should be corrected by appropriate means.

Compliance Observation: Upon inspection, no corrective work was performed during the written directive period.

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.

☐ CORRECTED ☒ NOT CORRECTED. . .

On June 3, 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 or about June 17, 2025, Respondent submitted an Answer to the Registrar.

On or about July 1, 2025, a Notice of Hearing was issued setting a hearing on August 4, 2025, at the Office of Administrative Hearings, an independent state agency. The Notice of Hearing was sent to Respondent’s mailing and e-mail address of record. Further the Office of Administrative Hearings issued an Order setting the matter on Google Meet on June 4, 2025 and sent it to the parties’ email mail addresses of record.

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

Investigator Cooke testified that while he was aware that Respondent was attempting to rectify the situation, no corrective work was ultimately completed.

Complainant’s testimony echoed that of Investigator Cooke’s. However, Complainant testified that she attempted to contact Respondent when she could as she was a teacher and had no phone access during the day. Complainant also acknowledged that while she spoke with Mr. Kolodiej on April 30, 2025, she would not allow him into her house unless he placed his settlement offer in writing.

Josh Kolodiej was Respondent’s General Manager in Tucson. He testified that his company just provided remediation services, however, when he saw the poor work that was initially completed, he offered to repair the same. Unfortunately, that repair work too was incorrect which led to this complaint. Mr. Kolodiej testified that he attempted to settle with Complainant at both jobsite inspections and during the Directive period. Mr. Kolodiej testified that he failed to place his settlement offer in writing until May 8, three days after the expiration of the Directive.

Administrative notice was taken of Respondent’s prior License record on August 18, 2025. Such prior License record reflected that Respondent’s License No. 345010 was first issued on May 16, 2023, and reflected that there was one open case, namely the present case, and one “Resolved/Settled 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 there was a violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(A), as there was faulty drywall installation and patches. Respondent also did not dispute the same.

Finally, the preponderance of the evidence established that while Mr. Koldiej attempted to contact Complainant to resolve the matter, he was unable to do so. While it may have been unreasonable for Complainant to require that the settlement offer was to be made in writing, the tribunal does not find this to be a denial of access. While the tribunal appreciates that Complainant was not Respondent’s only client he still could have put the settlement offer in writing and/or contacted Investigator Cooke for guidance and/or an extension of the Directive. However, it was not until the Directive expired three days later that Mr. Kolodiej made the written offer. Therefore, Complainant 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 as well as the reasonableness of the positions that the parties took in this matter, it is recommended that on the effective date of the Order, the Registrar shall not suspend Respondent’s License No. 345010.

It is further recommended that the Registrar require Respondent to pay the sum of $50.00 as a civil penalty pursuant to A.R.S. § 32-1154(E), for violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22).

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, August 18, 2025.

/s/ Adam D. Stone

Administrative Law Judge

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

Tom Cole, Director

Registrar of Contractors

Ellen Emory-Jackson

[email redacted]

Ryan P. Sandstrom

Sandstrom Law Group, PLLC

[email redacted]

By: OAH Staff