2025-09-11 Objection - Request for Reconsideration.pdf

2025A-04941-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2025-09-11

Resolvere Law PLLC Lawrence J. Felder, Esq. # 019763 3101 N. Central Ave., Suite 850 Phoenix, Arizona 85012 Telephone: 480-725-9135 [email redacted] [email redacted] Attorney for Complainant REGISTRAR OF CONTRACTORS OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA ROY SHEPARD, Case No. 2025-04941 COMPLAINANT, Docket No. 2025A-04941-CHC-ROC v. COMPLAINANT’S OBJECTION TO REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION SHARP MANUFACTURING AND CONTRACTING, LLC, LICENSE NO. (Honorable Nicole Robinson) ROC 294252, RESPONDENT. Complainant Roy Shepard hereby makes his objection to the Respondent’s motion for reconsideration of the Court’s September 2, 2025 order denying its motion to continue the September 17, 2025 9:00 a.m. virtual hearing in this matter. This request is improper in that it does not, in substance, seek reconsideration but, rather, seeks to resubmit information that it apparently possessed but omitted from its original motion. That is, the request is an attempted second bite of the apple, obviously intended to cure the deficiencies identified in Complainant’s objection to the initial motion. The request should be denied on this basis. Although the above argument should resolve the issue on procedural grounds, should the Court consider the substance of the request, the request also should be denied for the same reason stated in the Court’s order, i.e., there being “no good cause appearing.” The instant request does nothing to supply any additional good cause. First, in its initial motion, the Respondent stated that Mr. Bill Norton had a conflicting commitment “to train teachers in best practices in social studies education.” The instant request now states that, instead, he will be a “presenter for a field trip of 50 high school students.” This demonstrates a clear credibility issue. The Respondent describes Bill Norton as a “material” witness, although it is also clear from the Respondent’s previous submissions that the Respondent has a fundamental misunderstanding of what evidence is material and relevant in this case. The Court’s September 2, 2025 order states at page 1, line 24-25, in consideration of the Respondent’s Motion to Reclassify, that “the scope of the hearing will necessarily determine whether a workmanship violation occurred.” (Emphasis added.) There is no issue in this case of the Complainant’s refusal to permit access during the corrective work time-period. The argument that Bill Norton’s testimony is material and necessary because he attended the initial inspection is unavailing, since other of the Respondent’s representatives had extensive visits to the home in the period close in time to the inspection. Bill Norton’s observations from that one visit are not unique. And the Notice of Hearing packet includes 55 photographs from the inspection, regarding which other of the Respondent’s representatives - who performed and supervised that actual work - can testify. The Respondent never attended the reinspection because there was never any attempt to make corrections/repairs. The Respondent asserts that Bill Norton’s testimony is necessary because he is “the one who communicated with the ROC inspector, and complainant regarding the written directive.” The Court may note that the Respondent has submitted, as a provisional hearing exhibit, 108 pages of emails where Bill Norton is the primary, if not the sole, participant for the Respondent and in which he repeatedly emphasizes the facts and issues that he believes are germane to the process. Those emails are between him, the ROC inspector, and the Complainant. Assuming that these emails will be made part of the case record, Bill Norton will have had his opportunity to participate in this way on the identified subject, the written directive. Further, the Respondent submits that Bill Norton must testify because he is “the one who attempted to schedule an inspection within the 15 days with the complainant.” This is the main reason that the Respondent seeks to have Bill Norton testify, notwithstanding the fact that the Court has made a ruling, and it is objectively obvious, that this issue is irrelevant to the hearing. Also, in multiple previous submissions, the Respondent has made a voluminous record of this misguided argument and the alleged facts surrounding it. There is no need or reason to add to this through Bill Norton’s additional live testimony. The Respondent’s proposed exhibit, with 108 pages of emails mostly written by Bill Norton, includes his extensive statements on this irrelevant issue. On these bases, the Complainant respectfully urges that the request be denied. DATED: September 11, 2025. RESOLVERE LAW PLLC /s/ Lawrence J. Felder Lawrence J. Felder, Esq. 3101 N. Central Ave., Suite 850 Phoenix, AZ 85012 Attorney for Complainant ORIGINAL of the foregoing electronically submitted via AZOAH portal September 11, 2025, to: https://portal.azoah.com/submission/ COPY of the foregoing sent via AZOAH portal and/or email September 11, 2025, to: Office of Administrative Hearings [email redacted] [email redacted] Arizona Registrar of Contractors [email redacted] Doug Barrett, Arizona Registrar of Contractors [email redacted] William Norton Sharp Manufacturing and Contracting, L.L.C., Respondent [email redacted] /s/ Lawrence J. Felder