1 IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

2 Orange County Development LLC, 3 No. 2016A-3216-RCOMPLAINANT 4 COMPLAINANT,

5 v. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE 6 DECISION Arizona Wrangler Construction LLC, 7 License No: 291723 8 RESPONDENT. 9

10

11

12 HEARING: November 17, 2016 13 APPEARANCES: James Sparks, Esq. appeared on behalf of Complainant. Tom 14 Swift, Esq. appeared on behalf of Respondent. 15 ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Velva Moses-Thompson 16 ______17 FINDINGS OF FACT 18 1. Arizona Wrangler Construction, LLC (hereinafter “AZ Wrangler”) is the 19 holder of License No. 291723 issued by the Registrar of Contractors (hereinafter 20 “Registrar”). 21 2. Orange County Development, LLC (hereinafter "Orange County") filed a 22 Complaint against AZ Wrangler with the Registrar alleging that Respondent had failed to 23 pay Complainant the total sum of $38,000 for labor and materials provided for the 24 completion of a jaguar exhibit and catering kitchen at the Phoenix Zoo. 25 3. The parties were unable to resolve their differences, and Complainant 26 requested an administrative hearing. The Registrar then issued a formal Citation 27 charging Respondent with a possible violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(10). 28 4. On April 4, 2016, AZ Wrangler signed a contract with Wes Corp, LLC 29 wherein AZ Wrangler agreed to pay Wes Corp, LLC $14,500 for a Phoenix Zoo Jaguar 30 Expansion Project. The contract was not signed by Wes Corp, LLC. The only ROC license number listed on the contract was AZ Wrangler’s license number, 291723.

Office of Administrative Hearings 1400 West Washington, Suite 101 Phoenix, Arizona 85007 (602) 542-9826 5. On, May 10, 2016 Orange County submitted an invoice to AZ Wrangler to 1 for the completion of the jaguar exhibit at the Phoenix Zoo. The amount of the invoice 2 was $20,400. 3 6. On, May 13, 2016 Orange County submitted a proposal to AZ Wrangler to 4 complete a catering kitchen at the Phoenix Zoo. The amount of the proposal was $16,635. 5 7. The proposal and the invoice stated “Orange County Development dba Wes 6 Tech, LLC.” Both documents referenced ROC license number 237209. The proposal 7 nor the invoice referenced Campo Construction. 8 8. Orange County completed two lien waivers for the jaguar exhibit and the 9 kitchen project. Both waivers were in the name of Orange County. The waivers were 10 sent to Respondent by electronic mail on May 31, 2016. 11 9. After Orange County submitted the lien waivers to Respondent, 12 Respondent did not respond by stating that it had no contract with Orange County. 13 10. On June 26, 2016, Respondent requested bond insurance and tax 14 information from Orange County. 15 11. Despite the completion of both projects, Respondent made no payments to 16 Orange County. 17 12. At hearing, Respondent’s position was that it never had a contract with 18 Orange County, but that it entered into a contract with Wes Corp, LLC. However, 19 Respondent contended that when Wes Corp LLC was never legally created and failed to 20 obtain a contracting license, it paid Campo Concrete. Respondent contended that 21 Campo Concrete did all of the work. Respondent contended that Campo Concrete was 22 not a subcontractor of Orange County, but that Campo Concrete and Orange County 23 were going to form Wes Corp, LLC. Respondent contended that it could not issue 24 payment to Wes Corp, LLC because it was never legally created and did not have a 25 contracting license. Respondent contended that Wes Corp, LLC and Orange County 26 agreed that all payments would be made to Campo Concrete. Therefore, AZ Wrangler 27 issued payment for the jaguar expansion and catering kitchen projects to Campo 28 Concrete. Respondent also contended that there was no profit made on the contract and 29 Campo Concrete completed all of the work. 30

2 13. Orange County contended that it never agreed to have payments made to 1 Campo Concrete. Orange County contended that Campo Concrete was its 2 subcontractor. Orange County contended that although the Registrar lists its name as 3 “Orange County Development LLC dba RMK Windows”, it attempted to correct this error 4 with the Registrar because the correct name should have been “Orange County 5 Development LLC dba Wes Corp LLC.’’ 6 14. Orange County contended even if the original contract for the jaguar 7 expansion project between AZ Wrangler and Wes Corp, LLC is not valid because it was 8 never signed by Wes Corp, LLC, the proposal and invoice constituted a contract between 9 AZ Wrangler and Orange County and AZ Wrangler was obligated to pay Orange County. 10 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 11 1. The burden of proof at an administrative hearing falls to the party asserting 12 a claim, right, or entitlement and the standard of proof on all issues in these matters is by 13 a preponderance of the evidence. See A.A.C. R2-19-119. 14 2. A preponderance of the evidence is “such proof as convinces the trier of 15 fact that the contention is more probably true than not.” MORRIS K. UDALL, ARIZONA LAW 16 OF EVIDENCE § 5 (1960). 17 3. A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(10) includes among the grounds for suspension, 18 revocation, or other disciplinary action against a contractor’s license, 19 [f]ailure by a licensee . . . to pay monies in excess of seven hundred fifty 20 dollars when due for materials or services rendered in connection with the licensee’s operations as a contractor when the licensee has the capacity to 21 pay or, if the licensee lacks the capacity to pay, when the licensee has 22 received sufficient monies as payment for the particular construction work project or operation for which the services or materials were rendered or 23 purchased. 24 4. The evidence established Respondent owes Complainant the sum of 25 $38,000 for labor and materials provided to Respondent in connection with his operations 26 as a contractor. 27 5. Respondent failed to establish that it lacked the ability to pay Complainant 28 for the work performed. 29

30

3 6. Therefore, Complainant established that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 32- 1 1154(A)(10) by failing to pay Complainant $38,000 for labor and material rendered in 2 connection with Respondent’s contracting business. 3 7. Based upon Respondent’s violation of the provisions of A.R.S. § 32- 4 1154(A)(10), grounds exist to impose discipline against Respondent’s license. 5 RECOMMENDED ORDER 6 Based on the foregoing, it is recommended that the Registrar suspend Arizona 7 Wrangler Construction LLC’s License No: 291723 issued by the Registrar until it has 8 provided to the Registrar, and the Registrar has accepted, documents that establish that 9 it has paid Complainant $38,000 in certified funds. 10 It is further recommended that when and if the Registrar receives and accepts 11 Respondent’s evidence that it has paid Complainant $38,000 in certified funds, the 12 Registrar may close the Complaint in Case No. 2016-3216. 13 In the event of certification of this Administrative Law Judge Decision by the 14 Director of the Office of Administrative Hearings, the effective date of the Order will be 40 15 days from the date of the certification. 16 Done this day, December 8, 2016. 17

18 /s/ Velva Moses-Thompson Administrative Law Judge 19

20

21 Transmitted electronically to: 22 Jeffrey Fleetham, Director 23 Registrar of Contractors 24

25

26

27

28

29

30

4