STIPULATED SETTLEMENT OF LICENSE AND ORDER - OAH NO 2014080625 ĐIỂM CAO

BEFORE THE DIRECTOR
DEPARTMENT OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS

BUREAU OF AUTOMOTIVE REPAIR
STATE OF CALIFORNIA

In the Matter of the Accusation Against: Case No. 79/15-3
OAH No. 2014080625
SELMA SMOG
PAUL SINGH PANNU, OWNER
2373 West Front Street
Selma, CA 93662

Automotive Repair Dealer Reg. No.
ARD 222686

Smog Check, Test Only, Station License No.
TC 222686

PAUL SINGH PANNU
8652 East Nebraska
Selma, CA 93662

2205 First Street
Selma, CA 93662

Smog Check Inspector License No. EO
631488

and

Smog Check Repair Technician License No.
EI 631488 (formerly Advanced Emission

Specialist Technician License No. EA
631488)

and

PAWANPAL SINGH RANDHAWA
5906 N. La Ventana
Fresno, CA 93723

Smog Check Inspector License No. EO
632778

Smog Check Repair Technician License No.
EI 632778 (formerly Advanced Emission
Specialist Technician License No. EA
632778)

Respondents.

DECISION - OAH NO. 2014080625 - Page 1 of 2

DECISION

The attached Stipulated Settlement of License and Order is hereby accepted and
adopted as the Decision of the Director of the Department of Consumer Affairs in the
above-entitled matter.

This Decision shall become effective november 8, 201b

DATED: 9 / 14 / 16 (DDoOrRoEAtThHEeAaJOJHNoShONnson

Deputy Director
Division of Legal Affairs
Department of Consumer Affairs

DECISION - OAH No. 2014080625 - Page 2 of 2

KAMALA D. HARRIS

Attorney General of California
N JANICE K. LACHMAN -

Supervising Deputy Attorney General

w JEFFREY M. PHILLIPS

Deputy Attorney General
4 State Bar No. 154990

1300 I Street, Suite 125
5 P.O. Box 944255
6 Sacramento, CA 94244-2550

Telephone: (916) 324-6292
Facsimile: (916) 327-8643
E-mail:

Attorneys for Complainant

8

BEFORE THE

DEPARTMENT OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS

FOR THE BUREAU OF AUTOMOTIVE REPAIR

10 STATE OF CALIFORNIA

11

12 In the Matter of the Accusation Against: Case No. 79/15-3

13 SELMA SMOG OAH No. 2014080625

PAUL SINGH PANNU, OWNER STIPULATED SETTLEMENT OF
14 2373 West Front Street LICENSE AND ORDER

Selma, CA 93662

15

Automotive Repair Dealer Reg. No. ARD
16 222686

Smog Check, Test Only, Station License No.
17 TC 222686,

18 PAUL SINGH PANNU
8652 East Nebraska
Selma, CA 93662

20 2205 First Street
Selma, CA 93662

21

Smog Check Inspector License No. EO
22 631488 and

Smog Check Repair Technician License No.
23 EI 631488

(formerly Advanced Emission Specialist
24 Technician License No. EA 631488)

25 and

26 PAWANPAL SINGH RANDHAWA

5906 N. La Ventana
27 Fresno, CA 93723

28

STIPULATED SETTLEMENT (BAR Case No. 79/15-3)

Smog Check Inspector License No. EO
632778

Smog Check Repair Technician License
N No. EI 632778 (formerly Advanced Emission

Specialist Technician License No. EA
3 632778)

4 Respondents.

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between the parties to the above-

entitled proceedings that the following matters are true:
PARTIES

1. Patrick Dorais ("Complainant") is the Chief of the Bureau of Automotive Repair. He
10 brought this action solely in his official capacity and is represented in this matter by Kamala D.
11 Harris, Attorney General of the State of California, by Jeffrey M. Phillips, Deputy Attorney
12 General.

13 2. Respondent Selma Smog, Paul Singh Pannu, owner, Respondent Paul Singh Pannu,

14 and Respondent Pawanpal Singh Randhawa are represented by Attorney James Makasian of
15 Fresno, California.

16 Selma Smog; Paul Singh Pannu, Owner

17 3. On or about February 25, 2010, the Director issued Automotive Repair Dealer

18 Registration Number ARD 222686 ("registration") to Paul Singh Pannu ("Respondent Pannu"),

owner of Selma Smog. Respondent's registration was in full force and effect at all times relevant

20 to the charges brought herein, expired on February 29, 2016, and has not been renewed.

21 4. On or about March 4, 2010, the Director issued Smog Check, Test Only, Station

22 License Number TC 222686 ("'smog check station license") to Respondent Pannu. Respondent's

23 smog check station license was in full force and effect at all times relevant to the charges brought
24 herein, expired on February 29, 2016, and has not been renewed.

25 Paul Singh Pannu

26 5. On or about November 9, 2009, the Director issued Advanced Emission Specialist

27 Technician License Number EA 631488 to Paul Singh Pannu (Respondent Pannu). Pannu's

28 advanced emission specialist technician license was due to expire on March 31, 2014. Pursuant to

2
STIPULATED SETTLEMENT (BAR Case No. 79/15-3)

California Code of Regulations, title 16, section 3340.28, subdivision (e), the license was

N renewed, pursuant to Pannu's election, as Smog Check Inspector License Number EO 631488
w and Smog Check Repair Technician License Number EI 631488, effective March 27, 2014.
A Respondent's Smog Check Repair Technician license and Smog Check Inspector license will
5 expire on March 31, 2018, unless renewed.

Pawanpal Singh Randhawa

6. On or about December 27, 2010, the Director issued Advanced Emission Specialist

Technician License Number EA 632778 to Pawanpal Singh Randhawa ("Respondent

Randhawa"). Respondent's advanced emission specialist technician license was due to expire on

10 September 30, 2012. Pursuant to California Code of Regulations, title 16, section 3340.28,

11 subdivision (e), the license was renewed, pursuant to Respondent's election, as Smog Check
12 Inspector License No. EO 632778 and Smog Check Repair Technician License No. EI 632778

13 ("smog technician licenses"), effective August 15, 2012. Respondent's Smog Check Technician

14 License No. EI 632778 expired on September 30, 2014, and has not been renewed. Respondent's

15 Smog Check Inspector License No. EO 632778 expires on September 30, 2016, unless renewed.

16 JURISDICTION

17 7. Accusation No. 79/15-3 was filed before the Director of Consumer Affairs (Director),

18 for the Bureau of Automotive Repair (Bureau), and is currently pending against Respondents.
19 The Accusation and all other statutorily required documents were properly served on
20 Respondents on July 18, 2014. Respondents timely filed their Notice of Defense contesting the

21 Accusation.

22 8. A copy of Accusation No. 79/15-3 is attached as exhibit A and incorporated herein by

23 reference.

24 ADVISEMENT AND WAIVERS

25 9. Respondents have carefully read, fully discussed with their counsel, and understand

26 the charges and allegations in Accusation No. 79/15-3. Respondents have also carefully read,

27 fully discussed with counsel, and understand the effects of this Stipulated Settlement and
28 Disciplinary Order.

3

STIPULATED SETTLEMENT (BAR Case No. 79/15-3) |

10. Respondents are fully aware of their legal rights in this matter, including the right to a

hearing on the charges and allegations in the Accusation; the right to be represented by counsel at

w their own expense; the right to confront and cross-examine the witnesses against them; the right
A to present evidence and to testify on their own behalf; the right to the issuance of subpoenas to
5 compel the attendance of witnesses and the production of documents; the right to reconsideration
6 and court review of an adverse decision; and all other rights accorded by the California

Administrative Procedure Act and other applicable laws.

1 1. Respondents voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently waive and give up each and

9 every right set forth above.

10 CULPABILITY

11 12. Respondents admit the truth of each and every charge and allegation in Accusation

12 No. 79/15-3.

13 13. Respondents agree that their registration and licenses are subject to discipline and

14 agree to be bound by the Director's terms and conditions set forth in the Disciplinary Order

15 below .

16 RESERVATION

17 14. The admissions made by Respondents herein are only for the purposes of this

18 proceeding, or any other proceedings in which the Director of Consumer Affairs, Bureau of

19 Automotive Repair, or other professional licensing agency is involved, and shall not be

20 admissible in any other criminal or civil proceeding.

21 CONTINGENCY

22 15. This stipulation shall be subject to approval by the Director of Consumer Affairs or

23 the Director's designee. Respondents understand and agree that counsel for Complainant and the

24 staff of the Bureau of Automotive Repair may communicate directly with the Director and staff of

25 the Department of Consumer Affairs regarding this stipulation and settlement, without notice to
26 or participation by Respondent or his counsel. By signing the stipulation, Respondents

27 understand and agree that they may not withdraw this agreement or seek to rescind this stipulation
28 prior to the time the Director considers and acts upon it. If the Director fails to adopt this

STIPULATED SETTLEMENT (BAR Case No. 79/15-3)

stipulation as the Decision and Order, the Stipulated Settlement and Disciplinary Order shall be of

N no force or effect, except for this paragraph, it shall be inadmissible in any legal action between
W the parties, and the Director shall not be disqualified from further action by having considered
4 this matter.

U 16. The parties understand and agree that Portable Document Format (PDF) and facsimile

copies of this Stipulated Settlement and Disciplinary Order, including Portable Document Format

(PDF) and facsimile signatures thereto, shall have the same force and effect as the originals.

17. This Stipulated Settlement and Disciplinary Order is intended by the parties to be an

9 integrated writing representing the complete, final, and exclusive embodiment of their agreement.

10 It supersedes any and all prior or contemporaneous agreements, understandings, discussions,

11 negotiations, and commitments (written or oral). This Stipulated Settlement and Disciplinary

12 Order may not be altered, amended, modified, supplemented, or otherwise changed except by a
13 writing executed by an authorized representative of each of the parties.

14 18. In consideration of the foregoing admissions and stipulations, the parties agree that

15 the Director may, without further notice or formal proceeding, issue and enter the following

16 Disciplinary Order:

17 DISCIPLINARY ORDER

18 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Automotive Repair Dealer Registration No. ARD

19 222686 issued to Selma Smog, Paul Singh Pannu, Owner, is hereby revoked. Smog Check, Test

20 Only Station License Number TC 222686 issued to Selma Smog, Paul Singh Pannu, Owner, is
21 also revoked. Respondent Pawanpal Singh Randhawa's Smog Check Inspector License No. EO

22 632778 and Smog Check Repair Technician License No. EI 632778 are hereby revoked.

23

24 1 . The revocation of each license by the Bureau shall constitute the imposition of

discipline against each Respondent. This stipulation constitutes a record of the discipline and

26 shall become a part of each Respondent's license history with the Bureau of Automotive Repair.

27

28

5
STIPULATED SETTLEMENT (BAR Case No. 79/15-3) |

2. Respondent Selma Smog, Paul Singh Pannu, Owner, shall lose all rights and
N privileges as a Automotive Repair Dealer and Smog Check, Test Only, Station in California as of
w the effective date of the Director's Decision and Order.

3. Respondent Pawanpal Singh Randhawa shall lose all rights and privileges as a Smog
5 Check Inspector and as Smog Check Repair Technician as of the effective date of the Director's
6 Decision and Order.

4. Respondents Selma Smog and Pawanpal Singh Randhawa shall cause to be delivered
to the Bureau each of their revoked pocket license and, if one was issued, each of their wall
9 certificates on or before the effective date of the Decision and Order.

10 5. If either Respondent ever files an application for licensure/ registration or a petition

11 for reinstatement of their revoked licenses/ registration in the State of California, the Bureau shall

12 treat it as an application for a new license or registration. Each Respondent must comply with all

13 the laws, regulations and procedures for application of a new license or registration in effect at the
14 time the application is filed, and all of the charges and allegations contained in Accusation No.
15 79/15-3 shall be deemed to be true, correct and admitted by Respondent when the Director

16 determines whether to grant or deny the petition.

17 6. Respondent Selma Smog, Paul Singh Pannu, Owner shall pay the Bureau the costs of

18 enforcement in the amount of $3,769.59 prior to issuance of a new Automotive Repair Dealer

19 registration or Smog Check Test Only Station License. Respondent Randhawa shall pay the

20 Bureau its costs of enforcement in the amount of $1,884.80 prior to issuance of a new license.

21 IT IS ALSO ORDERED that Respondent Paul Singh Pannu's Smog Check Inspector

22 License Number EO 631488 and Smog Check Repair Technician License Number EI 631488,
23 and are hereby revoked. However, the revocation is stayed and Respondent is placed on
24 probation for three (3) years on the following terms and conditions.

25

26 1. Obey All Laws. Comply with all statutes, regulations and rules governing

27 automotive inspections, estimates and repairs.

28 2. Reporting. Respondent or Respondent's authorized representative must report in

6
STIPULATED SETTLEMENT (BAR Case No. 79/15-3)

person or in writing as prescribed by the Bureau of Automotive Repair, on a schedule set by the

N Bureau, but no more frequently than each quarter, on the methods used and success achieved in

W maintaining compliance with the terms and conditions of probation.

A 3. Report Financial Interest. Within 30 days of the effective date of this action, report

U any financial interest which any partners, officers, or owners of the Respondent facility may have

in any other business required to be registered pursuant to Section 9884.6 of the Business and

Professions Code.

4. Random Inspections. Provide Bureau representatives unrestricted access to inspect

9 all vehicles (including parts) undergoing repairs, up to and including the point of completion.

10 5. Jurisdiction. If an accusation is filed against Respondent during the term of

11 probation, the Director of Consumer Affairs shall have continuing jurisdiction over this matter

12 until the final decision on the accusation, and the period of probation shall be extended until such

13 decision.

14 6. Violation of Probation. Should the Director of Consumer Affairs determine that

15 Respondent has failed to comply with the terms and conditions of probation, the Department may,

16 after giving notice and opportunity to be heard temporarily or permanently invalidate the
17 registration and/or suspend or revoke the license.

18 7. Cost Recovery. Respondent Pannu shall pay the Bureau its costs of enforcement in

19 the amount of $1,884.80 during the probationary period of Respondent's Smog Check Inspector

20 License and Smog Check Repair Technician License. Payment to the Bureau of the full amount

21 of cost recovery shall be received no later than 6 months before probation terminates. Failure to

22 complete payment of cost recovery within this time frame shall constitute a violation of probation

23 which may subject Respondent's licenses registration to outright revocation; however, the
24 Director or the Director's Bureau of Automotive Repair designee may elect to continue probation

25 until such time as reimbursement of the entire cost recovery amount has been made to the Bureau.

26 ACCEPTANCE

27 I have carefully read the above Stipulated Settlement and Disciplinary Order and have fully

28 discussed it with my attorney, James M. Makasian. I understand the stipulation and the effect it

STIPULATED SETTLEMENT (BAR Case No. 79/15-3)

will have on my Automotive Repair Dealer Registration, Smog Check Test Only Station License,

N Smog Check Inspector License and Smog Check Repair License. I enter into this Stipulated

w Settlement and Disciplinary Order voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently, and agree to be

4 bound by the Decision and Order of the Director of Consumer Affairs.

5 DATED: 06/ 09/ 16 SELMA $MOG; PAUL SINGH PANNU, OWNER
PAUL SINGH PANNU, Respondent

. a

7 DATED 06/091 16

8

I have carefully read the above Stipulated Settlement and Disciplinary Order and have fully
10 discussed it with my attorney, James M. Makasian. I understand the stipulation and the effect it
11 will have on my Smog Check Inspector License and Smog Check Repair License. I enter into
12 this Stipulated Settlement and Disciplinary Order voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently, and
13 agree to be bound by the Decision and Order of the Director of Consumer Affairs.

14

15 DATED: PAWANPAL SINGH RANDHAWA, Respondent

16

17 I have read and fully discussed with Respondents Selma Smog, Paul Singh Pannu, Owner,

18 Paul Singh Pannu; and Pawanpal Singh Randhawa the terms and conditions and other matters

19 contained in the above Stipulated Settlement and Disciplinary Order. I approve its form and

20 content.

21 DATED: 6/9 / 16 James /M/ Makasian
Attorney for Respondent
22
23

24

25

26 ENDORSEMENT

27 The foregoing Stipulated Settlement and Disciplinary Order is hereby respectfully

28 submitted for consideration by the Director of Consumer Affairs.

8

STIPULATED SETTLEMENT (BAR Case No. 79/15-3) |

Dated: 7/15/ 16 Respectfully submitted,

N KAMALA D. HARRIS
W Attorney General of California
A JANICE K. LACHMAN
Supervising Deputy Attorney General

JEFFREYM PHILLIPS

Deputy Attorney General
Attorneys for Complainant

10
SA20141 14903

11 Selma Smog, Randhawa, Pannu revised stipulation

12
13

14
15
16
17

18

19

20
21
22

23

24

25
26
27
28

Q

STIPULATED SETTLEMENT (BAR Case No. 79/15-3)

Exhibit A

Accusation No. 79/15-3

KAMALA D. HARRIS

Attorney General of California

N JANICE K. LACHMAN

Supervising Deputy Attorney General

w JEFFREY M. PHILLIPS

Deputy Attorney General
State Bar No. 154990

1300 I Street, Suite 125

S P.O. Box 944255

Sacramento, CA 94244-2550

6 Telephone: (916) 324-6292
Facsimile: (916) 327-8643

7 Attorneys for Complainant

BEFORE THE

9 DEPARTMENT OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS

FOR THE BUREAU OF AUTOMOTIVE REPAIR

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

10

In the Matter of the Accusation Against: Case No. 79/15-3

AUTOMOTIVE CENTER ACCUSATION
13 RUMALDO MIKE CARRILLO, OWNER
(Smog Check)
1818 East El Monte Way, Unit #1
Dinuba, CA 93618-9317

15 Automotive Repair Dealer Reg. No. ARD 179642,

16 SELMA SMOG
PAUL SINGH PANNU, OWNER

17 2373 West Front Street
Selma, CA 93662

18

Automotive Repair Dealer Reg. No. ARD 222686
19 Smog Check, Test Only, Station License No. TC 222686,

20 PAUL SINGH PANNU
8652 East Nebraska

21 Selma, CA 93662

22 2205 First Street
Selma, CA 93662

23

Smog Check Inspector License No. EO 631488 and
24 Smog Check Repair Technician License No. E1 631488

(formerly Advanced Emission Specialist Technician
License No. EA 631488)

26 and

27

28

Accusation

PAWANPAL SINGH RANDHAWA

5906 N. La Ventana

N Fresno, CA 93723

3 Smog Check Inspector License No. EO 632778
Smog Check Repair Technician License

4 No. EI 632778 (formerly Advanced Emission Specialist
Technician License No. EA 632778)

5

Respondents.

a

Complainant alleges:

8 PARTIES

9 1. Patrick Dorais ("Complainant") brings this Accusation solely in his official capacity

10 as the Chief of the Bureau of Automotive Repair ("Bureau"), Department of Consumer Affairs.

11 Automotive Center; Rumaldo Mike Carrillo, Owner

12 . On or about 1994, the Director of Consumer Affairs ("Director") issued Automotive

13 Repair Dealer Registration Number ARD 179642 ("registration") to Rumaldo Mike Carrillo

14 ("Respondent Carrillo"), owner of Automotive Center. Respondent's registration was in full

15 force and effect at all times relevant to the charges brought herein and will expire on August 31,

16 2014, unless renewed.

17 Selma Smog; Paul Singh Pannu, Owner

3. On or about February 25, 2010, the Director issued Automotive Repair Dealer

19 Registration Number ARD 222686 ("registration") to Paul Singh Pannu ("Respondent Pannu"),

20 owner of Selma Smog. Respondent's registration was in full force and effect at all times relevant
21 to the charges brought herein and will expire on February 28, 2015, unless renewed.

22 4. On or about March 4, 2010, the Director issued Smog Check, Test Only, Station

23 License Number TC 222686 ("smog check station license") to Respondent Pannu. Respondent's
24 smog check station license was in full force and effect at all times relevant to the charges brought

25 herein and will expire on February 28, 2015, unless renewed.

26 Paul Singh Pannu

27 5 . On or about November 9, 2009, the Director issued Advanced Emission Specialist

28 Technician License Number EA 631488 to Paul Singh Pannu (Respondent Pannu). Pannu's

Accusation

advanced emission specialist technician license was duc to expire on March 31, 2014. Pursuant to

N California Code of Regulations, title 16, section 3340.28, subdivision (e), the license was

w renewed, pursuant to Pannu's election, as Smog Check Inspector License Number EO 631488
A and Smog Check Repair Technician License Number EI 631488 ("smog technician licenses"),
un effective March 27, 2014. Respondent's smog technician licenses will expire on March 31, 2016,
6 unless renewed.'

Pawanpal Singh Randhawa

6. On or about December 27, 2010, the Director issued Advanced Emission Specialist

Technician License Number EA 632778 to Pawanpal Singh Randhawa ("Respondent

10 Randhawa"). Respondent's advanced emission specialist technician license was due to expire on

11 September 30, 2012. Pursuant to California Code of Regulations, title 16, section 3340.28,

12 subdivision (e), the license was renewed, pursuant to Respondent's election, as Smog Check

13 Inspector License No. EO 632778 and Smog Check Repair Technician License No. EI 632778

14 ("smog technician licenses"), effective August 15, 2012. Respondent's smog technician licenses
15 will expire on September 30, 2014, unless renewed.

16 JURISDICTION

17 7. Business and Professions Code ("Bus. & Prof. Code") section 9884.7 provides that

18 the Director may revoke an automotive repair dealer registration.

19 8. Bus. & Prof. Code section 9884.13 provides, in pertinent part, that the expiration of a

20 valid registration shall not deprive the Director of jurisdiction to proceed with a disciplinary

21 proceeding against an automotive repair dealer or to render a decision temporarily or permanently

22 invalidating (suspending or revoking) a registration.

23 9 . Health and Safety Code ("Health & Saf. Code") section 44002 provides, in pertinent

24 part, that the Director has all the powers and authority granted under the Automotive Repair Act

25 for enforcing the Motor Vehicle Inspection Program.

26 Effective August 1, 2012, California Code of Regulations, title 16, sections 3340.28,
27 3340.29, and 3340.30 were amended to implement a license restructure from the Advanced

Emission Specialist Technician (EA) license and Basic Arca (EB) Technician license to Smog

28 Check Inspector (EO) license and/or Smog Check Repair Technician (EI) license.

Accusation

10. Health & Saf. Code section 44072.6 provides, in pertinent part, that the expiration or

N suspension of a license by operation of law, or by order or decision of the Director of Consumer
Affairs, or a court of law, or the voluntary surrender of the license shall not deprive the Director

A of jurisdiction to proceed with disciplinary action.

un 1 1. Health & Saf. Code section 44072.8 states that when a license has been revoked or

6 suspended following a hearing under this article, any additional license issued under this chapter

in the name of the licensee may be likewise revoked or suspended by the director.

8 12. California Code of Regulations, title 16, section 3340.28, subdivision (e), states that

"[ujpon renewal of an unexpired Basic Area Technician license or an Advanced Emission

10 Specialist Technician license issued prior to the effective date of this regulation, the licensee may

11 apply to renew as a Smog Check Inspector, Smog Check Repair Technician, or both.

12 STATUTORY AND REGULATORY PROVISIONS

13 13. Bus. & Prof. Code section 9884.7 states, in pertinent part:

14 (a) The director, where the automotive repair dealer cannot show there

15 was a bona fide error, may deny, suspend, revoke or place on probation the

registration of an automotive repair dealer for any of the following acts or omissions

16 related to the conduct of the business of the automotive repair dealer, which are done

by the automotive repair dealer or any automotive technician, employee, partner,

officer, or member of the automotive repair dealer.

17

18 (1) Making or authorizing in any manner or by any means whatever any

statement written or oral which is untruc or misleading, and which is known, or which

by the exercise of reasonable care should be known, to be untrue or misleading.

19

. . . .
20

(4) Any other conduct that constitutes fraud.
21

. . . .

22

(6) Failure in any material respect to comply with the provisions of this

23 chapter or regulations adopted pursuant to it.

24 (7) Any willful departure from or disregard of accepted trade standards

25 for good and workmanlike repair in any material respect, which is prejudicial to

another without consent of the owner or his or her duly authorized representative.

26 . . . .

27 (c) Notwithstanding subdivision (b), the director may suspend, revoke or

28 place on probation the registration for all places of business operated in this state by

an automotive repair dealer upon a finding that the automotive repair dealer has, or is,

4 Accusation

engaged in a course of repeated and willful violations of this chapter, or regulations
adopted pursuant to it.

N 14. Bus. & Prof. Code section 22, subdivision (a), states:

W "Board" as used in any provision of this Code, refers to the board in

which the administration of the provision is vested, and unless otherwise expressly

A provided, shall include "bureau," "commission," "committee," "department,"

'division," "examining committee," "program," and "agency."

U

15. Bus. & Prof. Code section 477, subdivision (b), states, in pertinent part, that a

"license" includes "registration" and "certificate."
16. Health & Saf. Code section 44072.2 states, in pertinent part:

9 The director may suspend, revoke, or take other disciplinary action

10 against a license as provided in this article if the licensee, or any partner, officer, or

director thereof, does any of the following:

11 (a) Violates any section of this chapter [ the Motor Vehicle Inspection

12 Program (Health and Saf. Code $ 44000, et seq.)] and the regulations adopted

pursuant to it, which related to the licensed activities.

13 . . . .

14 (c) Violates any of the regulations adopted by the director pursuant to this

chapter.
15

16 (d) Commits any act involving dishonesty, fraud, or deceit whereby
another is injured . . .

17 17. Health & Saf. Code section 44072.10 states, in pertinent part:

18 . . . .

19 (c) The department shall revoke the license of any smog check technician

20 or station licensee who fraudulently certifics vehicles or participates in the fraudulent

inspection of vehicles. A fraudulent inspection includes, but is not limited to, all of
the following:

21

(1) Clean piping, as defined by the department . . .
22

23 18. California Code of Regulations, title 16, section 3340 states, in pertinent part, that

24 " [cllean piping' for the purposes of Health and Safety Code section 44072.10(c)(1), means the
25 use of a substitute exhaust emissions sample in place of the actual test vehicle's exhaust in order

26 to cause the EIS to issue a certificate of compliance for the test vehicle".

27

28

Accusation

COST RECOVERY

N 19. Bus. & Prof. Code section 125.3 provides, in pertinent part, that a Board may request

w the administrative law judge to direct a licentiate found to have committed a violation or

A violations of the licensing act to pay a sum not to exceed the reasonable costs of the investigation

5 and enforcement of the case.

6 UNDERCOVER OPERATION #1: 1989 TOYOTA & 1994 HONDA

20. The Bureau received a consumer complaint, indicating that the consumer had paid

Respondent Carrillo $300 for the issuance of a smog check certificate for their vehicle and that
the vehicle was disassembled at the time it was allegedly smog tested. The Automotive Center is

10 not a licensed smog check station and Carrillo is not a licensed smog check technician.

11 21. On or about October 15, 2013, a representative of the Bureau, acting in an undercover

12 capacity ("operator"), took the Bureau's 1989 Toyota ("Toyota") to Carrillo's facility. A

13 defective coolant temperature sensor had been installed in the Bureau-documented vehicle,

14 causing the "check engine" light to illuminate on the dashboard. The operator met with Carrillo

15 and requested an oil change on the Toyota as well as a diagnosis of the check engine light.
16 Carrillo told the operator that he would contact him once he determined what was causing the
17 check engine light to illuminate. The operator left the facility.

18 22. At approximately 1 134 hours that same day, Carrillo called the operator and told him

19 that the computer was not communicating with the vehicle, which was a common problem with

20 that model Toyota. Carrillo told the operator that he would purchase a Zener Diode from Radio

21 Shack and that it would cost $120 to install it in the vehicle. The operator authorized the work,
22 then asked Carrillo if he could have the Toyota "smogged" (smog tested) following the repair.

23 Carrillo told the operator that he could smog the vehicle for an additional $49 and that the Toyota

24 would be ready the next day.

25 23. On October 16, 2013, the operator called Carrillo to check on the status of the Toyota.

26 Carrillo told the operator that the Toyota passed the smog inspection, but still was not operating

27 properly. Carrillo stated that the Toyota ran rough when it was cold and that he wanted to check
28 the fuel filter to see if it was plugged.

6 Accusation

24. Information from the Bureau's vehicle information database ("VID") showed that on

N October 16, 2013, between 1202 and 1216 hours, Jose Rojas ("Jose"), a smog check technician
w employed by Martin Rojas ("Martin"), the owner of Dinuba Smog, located at 1818 East El Monte

Way, Suite C, in Dinuba, performed a smog inspection on the Toyota, on behalf of Martin,

5 resulting in the issuance of electronic smog Certificate of Compliance
25. On October 18, 2013, the operator returned to Carrillo's facility. Carrillo told the

operator that he went to the wrecking yard and located a used coolant temperature sensor and

8 coolant control box for the Toyota. The operator asked Carrillo if he knew someone who could
9 smog a vehicle for him that was located out of state. The operator explained that his son's Honda

10 was modified, that his son went to school in Nevada, and that the registration was expired.

11 Carrillo told the operator that he could have the vehicle smogged for $350.

12 26. On October 21, 2013, the operator went to the facility to pick up the Toyota and paid

13 Carrillo $414.49 in cash for the repairs. Carrillo gave the operator copies of an estimate, invoice,

14 and vehicle inspection report. The operator provided Carrillo with the registration renewal form

15 for the Bureau's 1994 Honda ("Honda"). Carrillo told the operator that he would have the smog

16 check done in a couple of days. The operator left the facility.

17 27. On October 22, 2013, the Bureau inspected the Toyota using the invoice for

18 comparison. The Bureau found that Carrillo installed a used coolant temperature sensor on the

19 vehicle that was in poor condition, failed to record the repair on the invoice, and performed

20 additional repairs that were not necessary on the vehicle.

21 28. On October 23, 2013, the operator called Carrillo and asked him if the smog for the

22 Honda was ready. Carrillo told the operator that "his guy" wanted the registration for the Honda.

23 29. On October 24, 2013, the operator went to the facility and gave Carrillo the

24 registration as requested.

25 30. On and between October 25 and October 29, 2013, the operator called Carrillo

26 several times to check on the status of the vehicle, but Carrillo did not answer the phone.

27 31. The Bureau's VID data showed that on October 29, 2013, between 1350 and 1404

28 hours, Jose performed a smog inspection on the Honda, on behalf of Martin, resulting in the

7 Accusation

issuance of electronic smog Certificate of Compliance The VID data also

N showed that the vehicle information, including the odometer reading, engine size, etc., was

W entered into the Emissions Inspection System ("EIS") by scanning the registration.

A 32. On October 30, 2013, the operator called Carrillo. Carrillo told the operator that the

U smog for the Honda was completed and that the price for the smog had increased to $400.

6 Carrillo stated that "his smog guy" called a friend who had the same model Honda that he could

use as a substitute to perform the test. Carrillo told the operator that all of the necessary forms for

the smog check had already been submitted electronically to the DMV. The operator stated that

9 he would be arriving at the facility in approximately one hour. Carrillo told the operator that he

10 had to attend a meeting, but would leave the documents with his employee, Rodrigo, and that the

11 operator could pay Rodrigo the $400.

12 33. On October 31, 2013, the operator went to the facility and met with Rodrigo.

13 Rodrigo gave the operator the registration and renewal notice for the Honda and a vehicle

14 inspection report. The operator paid Rodrigo $400 in cash, then left the facility.

15 FIRST CAUSE FOR DISCIPLINE

16 (Fraud)

17 34. Respondent Carrillo's registration is subject to disciplinary action pursuant to Bus. &

18 Prof. Code section 9884.7, subdivision (a)(4), in that Respondent committed acts constituting

19 fraud, as follows: Respondent Carrillo conspired with agents, employees, and/or representatives

20 of Dinuba Smog, including, but not limited to, Martin Rojas and Jose Rojas," to have a fraudulent
21 smog inspection performed on the Bureau's 1994 Honda using clean piping methods, resulting in
22 the issuance of a fraudulent electronic smog certificate of compliance for the vehicle.

23 Consequently, a bona fide inspection was not conducted of the emission control devices and

24 systems on the vehicle, thereby depriving the People of the State of California of the protection

25 afforded by the Motor Vehicle Inspection Program.

26

27 Martin Rojas, the owner of Dinuba Smog, and Jose Rojas have been charged in a
separate Accusation with violations of the Automotive Repair Act and the Motor Vehicle

28 Inspection Program relating to the undercover operation.

8 Accusation