S U o> VA, x STATE OF FLORIDA On, % DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATIGW% 2. CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY LICENSING BOARD WipeOn DIVISION I OL. DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND ; PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, 00-2735 ? Petitioner, Case No. 94-10450; 94-12757; 94-13725 — , vs. MEJRDAD SHAHGODARI, Respondent. / ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLAINT Petitioner, DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, ("Petitioner"), files this Administrative Complaint before the Construction Industry Licensing Board, against MEHRDAD SHAHGODARI, ("Respondent"), and says: 1. Petitioner is the state agency charged with regulating the practice of contracting pursuant to Section 20.165, Florida Statutes, and Chapters 455 and 489, Florida Statutes. 2. Respondent is, and has been at all times material hereto, a certified general contractor in the State of Florida, having been issued license number CG C047089. 3. Respondent's address of record is 800 West McNab Road, Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33309. 4. At all times material hereto, Respondent was the qualifying agent for A MAX “ CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION and was responsible in such capacity for all its contracting activities. a \/ FACTS PERTAINING TO CASE NO, 94-10450 5. On or about June 16, 1993, Respondent d/b/a A MAX CONSTRUCTION CORP. contracted with Ms. Louise Philippe (hereinafter referred to as “Customer”) to build an addition to her residence located at 2871 N.W. 26th Street, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, 33311-2011. 6. The total contract price was nine thousand two hundred dollars ($9,200.00) of which amount A MAX CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION accepted six thousand dollars ($6,000.00) in documented payments from Customer. 7. Minor construction commenced on some indeterminate date in or around June of 1993 and eased shortly thereafter without just cause or proper notice to Customer. 8. At the time construction ceased, Customer had paid seventy percent (70%) of the total contract price; however, less than five percent (5%) of the contracted construction had been completed by Respondent and/or A MAX CONSTRUCTION CORP. 9, Respondent and/or A MAX CONSTRUCTION CORP. failed to re-commence the contracted construction and failed to return monies to Customer. COUNT I 10. Petitioner realleges and incorporates the allegations set forth in paragraphs one thrcugh nine as though fully set forth in this Count I. 11. Based on the foregoing, the Respondent violated Section 489.129(1)(h)2., Florida Sta‘utes (1993), by committing mismanagement or misconduct in the practice of contracting that causes financial harm to a customer. Financial mismanagement or misconduct occurs when the contractor has abandoned a customer's job and the percentage of completion is less than the perentage of the total contract price paid to the contractor as of the time of abandonment, unless the contractor is entitled to retain such funds under the terms of the contract or refunds the excess funds within 30 days after the date the job is abandoned. COUNT II 12. Petitioner realleges and incorporates the allegations set forth in paragraphs one ‘through nine as though fully set forth in this Count I. 13. Based on the foregoing, the Respondent violated Section 489.129(1)(k), Florida Stat ites (1993), by abandoning a construction project in which the contractor is engaged or under contract as a contractor. A project may be presumed abandoned after 90 days if the contractor terminates the project without just cause or without proper notification to the owner, including the -eason for termination, or fails to perform work without just cause for 90 consecutive days. COUNT III 14. Petitioner realleges and incorporates the allegations set forth in paragraphs one thrcugh nine as though fully set forth in this Count III. 15. Based on the foregoing, the Respondent violated Section 489.129(1)(m), Florida Staiutes (1993), by committing fraud or deceit in the practice of contracting. COUNT IV 16. Petitioner realleges and incorporates the allegations set forth in paragraphs one through nine as though fully set forth in this Count IV. 17. Section 489.1 195, Florida Statutes provides in part that qualifying agents for a business organization are responsible for supervision of all operations of the organization, including the field work at all sites, and for financial matters, both for the organization in general anc for each specific job. baad \w/ 18. Respondent, as qualifier, failed to supervise the financial and/or field activities of A MAX CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION. 19. Based on the foregoing, the Respondent violated Section 489.129(1)(n), Florida Statittes (1993), by committing incompetency or misconduct in the practice of contracting. FACTS PERTAINING TO CASE NO. 94-13725 20. On or about December 17, 1993, Respondent entered into a contract with Ms. Lenztta Barnett to convert her garage into a living area. 21. The project was located at 3545 N.W. 28th Street, Lauderdale Lakes, Florida, 33311. 22. The total contract price was seven thousand five hundred dollars ($7,500.00) of which amount Respondent accepted one thousand five hundred dollars ($1,500.00) from Ms. Barnett as a deposit to begin construction. 23. Respondent failed to commence the contracted construction and failed to return Ms. Barnett's deposit. COUNT V 24. Petitioner realleges and incorporates the allegations set forth in paragraphs twenty through twenty-three as though fully set forth in this Count V. 25. Based on the foregoing, the Respondent violated Section 489.129(1)(h)2., Florida Statutes (1993), by committing mismanagement or misconduct in the practice of contracting that causes financial harm to a customer. Financial mismanagement or misconduct occurs when the contractor has abandoned a customer's job and the percentage of completion is less than the percentage of the total contract price paid to the contractor as of the time of abandonment, unless ; 7 ~/ the contractor is entitled to retain such funds under the terms of the contract or refunds the excess funds within 30 days after the date the job is abandoned. COUNT VI 26, Petitioner realleges and incorporates the allegations set forth in paragraphs twenty through twenty-three as though fully set forth in this Count VI. 27. Based on the foregoing, the Respondent violated Section 489.129(1)(k), Florida Statutes (1993), by abandoning a construction project in which the contractor is engaged or under con:ract as a contractor. A project may be presumed abandoned after 90 days if the contractor terminates the project without just cause or without proper notification to the owner, including the reason for termination, or fails to perform work without just cause for 90 consecutive days. COUNT VIL 28. Petitioner realleges and incorporates the allegations set forth in paragraphs twenty through twenty-three as though fully set forth in this Count VII. 29. Section 489.1195, Florida Statutes provides in part that qualifying agents for a business organization are responsible for supervision of all operations of the organization, including the field work at all sites, and for financial matters, both for the organization in general and for each specific job. 30. Respondent, as qualifier, failed to supervise the financial and/or field operations of A MAX CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION. 31. Based on the foregoing, the Respondent violated Section 489.129(1)(n), Florida Statutes (1993), by committing incompetency or misconduct in the practice of contracting. ; laa | \e/ FACTS PERTAINING TO CASE NO. 94-12757 32. On or about July 25, 1993, Respondent contracted with Ms. Catherine Jiminez to builcl an addition to her residence located at 4801 S.W. 164th Terrace, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, 33331. 33. The total contract price was fifty-two thousand five hundred dollars ($52,500.00) of which amount A MAX CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION accepted twenty-three thousand six hundred three dollars and fifty-seven cents ($23,603.57) from Ms. Jiminez for the contracted construction. 34. Ms. Jiminez paid an additional four thousand one hundred nine dollars and forty-three cents ($4,109.43) to subcontractors and materialmen; bringing the grand total to twenty-seven thousand four hundred and forty-two dollars ($27,442.00) paid on the initial contract price. 35. Respondent failed to obtain the required permitting for the aforementioned construction project. 36. Construction commenced on or about February 15, 1994 and continued until in or around April of 1994 at which time construction ceased without just cause or proper notice to Ms. Jiminez. 37. At the time construction ceased, Respondent had failed to pay materialmen and/or subcontractors who had provided labor and /or materials for the contracted construction, resulting in valid liens being placed on Ms. Jiminez’ property by the following: A.F. Dozer, Inc., $2,936.64. 38. Respondent failed to recommence the contracted construction and failed to return monies to Ms. Jiminez or have the aforesaid lien removed. , la/ Y COUNT VU 39. Petitioner realleges and incorporates the allegations set forth in paragraphs thirty-two through thirty-eight as though fully set forth in this Count VIII. 40. Based on the foregoing, the Respondent violated Section 489.129(1)(d), Florida Statutes (1993), by knowingly violating the applicable building codes or laws of the state or of any municipalities or counties thereof. COUNT IX 41. Petitioner realleges and incorporates the allegations set forth in paragraphs thirty-two through thirty-eight as though fully set forth in this Count IX. 42. Based on the foregoing, the Respondent violated Section 489.129(1)(h)1., Florida Statutes (1993), by committing mismanagement or misconduct in the practice of contracting that causes financial harm to a customer. Financial mismanagement or misconduct occurs when valid liens have been recorded against the property of a contractor's customer for supplies or services ord2red by the contractor for the customer's job; the contractor has received funds from the customer to pay for the supplies or services; and the contractor has not had the liens removed frorn the property, by payment or by bond, within 75 days after the date of such. COUNT X 43. Petitioner realleges and incorporates the allegations set forth in paragraphs thirty-two through thirty-eight as though fully set forth in this Count X. 44. Section 489.1195, Florida Statutes provides in part that qualifying agents for a business organization are responsible for supervision of all operations of the organization, including the field work at all sites, and for financial matters, both for the organization in general anc for each specific job. ' bas/ \/ 45. Respondent, as qualifier, failed to supervise the financial and/or field activities of A MAX CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION. 46. Based on the foregoing, the Respondent violated Section 489.129(1)(n), Florida Statutes (1993), by committing incompetency or misconduct in the practice of contracting. COUNT XI 47. Petitioner realleges and incorporates the allegations set forth in paragraphs thirty-two through thirty-eight as though fully set forth in this Count XI. 48. Based on the foregoing, the Respondent violated Section 489.129(1)(p), Florida Staiutes (1993), by proceeding on any job without obtaining applicable local building department permits and inspection. WHEREFORE, Petitioner respectfully requests the Construction Industry Licensing Bozrd enter an Order imposing one or more of the following penalties: place on probation, reprimand the licensee, revoke, suspend, deny the issuance or renewal of the certificate or reg stration, require financial restitution to a consumer, impose an administrative fine not to exceed $5,000 per violation, require continuing education, assess costs associated with investigation and prosecution, impose any or all penalties delineated within Section 455.227(2), Florida Statutes, and/or any other relief that the Board is authorized to impose pursuant to Chapters 489, 455, Florida Statutes, and/or the rules promulgated thereunder. Signed this tt day ot UV een fv , 1996, Richard T. Farrell FILED Department of Business and Professional Regulation AGENCY CLERK Senior Construction Attorney ck Sign £- (doula DATE, Lt ene bo -9& e/ COUNSEL FOR DEPARTMENT: Rubv Seymour-Barr Senior Construction Attorney Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Suit2 60 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Coke RSB/jcc ar ; oo ~4 i, Case # 94-10450; 94-12757; 94-13725

Docket for Case No: 00-002739PL