All City Flooring LLC

Mr [redacted] is an expert tile installer and contractor with over a decade of experience with an excellent professional reputation for providing quality work and craftsmanship at a very fair and reasonable cost to his customersMr [redacted] is regularly contracted to perform many intricate and complex tiling jobs for numerous large-scale new builds and projects; however, he still provides tile work on a smaller scale such as the jobs underlying this complaint.? ? To begin, the allegations in the attached complaint are nothing more than a veiled attempt to cause financial and reputation harm to Mr [redacted] 's name and business in the hope that publication of the complaint damages his professional standing in the industryAs a result, this complaint should be dismissed without any of its contents being published.? With that said, Mr [redacted] agrees that he was hired by a Board Representative of [redacted] for a small tile job as outlined in the complaintAs briefly noted in the complaint, Mr [redacted] was initially hired by the Board Representative who submitted this complaint to complete one small tile job in one of the units at the [redacted] building.? ? Mr [redacted] gave the Board Representative an extremely favorable estimate? to complete the job due to? its? size and lack of complexity so the Board Representative retained Mr [redacted] to move forward.? After Mr [redacted] was retained to provide the tile work, the Board Representative instructed Mr [redacted] what was to be done, what materials were to be used, and how the job should be completed.? Mr [redacted] executed the Board Representative's instructions on that first job with no issues or problems whatsoever.? The tile job? was a small, simple, and straightforward job with no real complexity whatsoever so Mr [redacted] was able to provide the work quickly and at a very low cost given his level of expertise in completing such a small job.? ? After completing the first job, the Board Representative didn't have any complaints or issues with the timing or workmanship? of the tile work provided by Mr [redacted] which is evident by the fact that Mr [redacted] was then retained to provide additional tile work on a second unit of the building.? Had the Board Representative had any issues or complaints about any of Mr [redacted] 's work product, professionalism, or other aspects of his services provided, Mr [redacted] would not have been hired to complete the same job for another unit of the buildingAdditionally, the second job had the same issue as the first unit so the Board Representative instructed Mr [redacted] to perform exactly the same type of tile work in the second unit as the first.? The Board Representative and Mr [redacted] agreed that the tile work for the second unit would only be $1,which included all materials and supplies so the cost of labor was barely over $1,dollarsUnlike the first job, Mr [redacted] had numerous difficulties and problems working with the owner of the unit for the second job which ultimately led to the underlying dispute and prevented the job from getting done in a timely manner according to the original plan.? First off, Mr [redacted] was instructed by the Board Representative to perform the same work on the second job as the firstMore specifically, Mr [redacted] was instructed by the Board Representative to use the same materials and overall design and install the tiles in the same manner as the previous job.? As such, Mr [redacted] began the project as instructed using the same materials and installation design as the first job; however, after Mr [redacted] nearly completed the job except for final steps including grouting the tile, he was informed that the unit owner wanted changes made to the tile installation and work performedMr [redacted] attempted to accommodate the unit owner's issues and changes to the planned work; however, the unit owner was extremely difficult to work with and never home during regular business hours for Mr [redacted] to complete the job.? Despite those challenges and problems, Mr [redacted] completed the majority of the job and was only unable to finish the work due to the unit owner's odd hours and unavailability to make her home available to access during regular business hours.? The unit owner worked at night and slept during the day so she would not allow Mr [redacted] to gain access to the unit to complete the job during regular business hours.? Regardless of these challenges, Mr [redacted] made every effort to address the unit owner's issues and accommodate her inflexible schedule; however, a job that should have taken several days turned into several weeks on top of the unnecessary and unreasonable changes the unit owner wanted.? Mr [redacted] is a small business owner with many clients and ongoing jobs so the delay caused by the unit owner and her scheduling inflexibility prevented Mr [redacted] from completing the job according to the initial plan.? In addition to those challenges, the unit owner identified what she felt were issues with the tile work provided by Mr [redacted] She claimed that the tiles were uneven and that there were problems with the trim work behind the washer and dryer.? However, the tiles were not, in fact, uneven in any way; rather, the slight (microscopic) change in gradation that is industry standard for a job like this were due to the fact that the tiles are not precision milled (an industry standard for the tiles chosen by the Board Representative), the old age of the building and unlevel nature of the subfloor? (a factor that was beyond Mr [redacted] 's control), and the natural bevel in the tile themselves.? All of these factors contributed to the slight gradation changes in tiles that are completely and all within industry standard for this type of job.? On multiple occasions, Mr [redacted] explained all of this to the unit owner and the Board Representative; however, the unit owner wanted the work redone at no costDuring this same time, Mr [redacted] was informed that his trim work had come unglued and that they were moving forward with another professional to complete the job.? After hearing the new issue with the trim work and viewing a picture of what was provided, Mr [redacted] concluded that the unit owner or Board Representative manually pried the wood trim up to make it look like it had come apartGiven the steps that were taken at installation and the delay in the timing of the issue being reported to Mr [redacted] , he was certain that his trim work did not simply come unglued or come apart; rather, he was positive that the trim work was pried up with physical assistance by the unit owner or another party to create the appearance of poor workmanship.? At that point, it was clear to Mr [redacted] that the unit owner and/or Board Representative were actively attempting to create untruthful and illegitimate reasons not to pay Mr [redacted] for the work he had provided.? Additionally, the Board Representative and unit owner moved forward with retaining other professionals while Mr [redacted] had indicated he was willing to help resolve the issuesHowever, the unilaterally moved forward with other professionals without giving Mr [redacted] an opportunity to complete the work in a mutually satisfactory manner the parties could agree toWith any job, where changes occur or problems arise, a plan must first be agreed to before completing the next steps so Mr [redacted] was actively attempting to address the issues when they changed course.? When it was clear that the unit owner and Board Representative had retained other professionals, Mr [redacted] sent them a bill for the agreed upon amount for the services providedAfter several months of excuses and putting Mr [redacted] off, the [redacted] Board sent him a letter indicating they would not be paying him for his services as previously agreed toAt that time, Mr [redacted] contacted the undersigned attorney to help resolve the dispute.? I contacted the Board Representative about the issue in an attempt to quickly resolve the dispute given the small amount of money in question and the respective issues both parties hadAfter contacting the Board Representative, I was contacted by their attorney which resulted in a quick resolution after a 10-minute phone call.? The Board's attorney and I both agreed that there were mutual issues with both parties conduct and actions that resulted in the problems identified and dispute in questionAs a result, we mutually agreed that the parties should agree to resolve this matter for the original $1,amount owed without any further costs or fees for our assistance or involvement.? No legal action would be taken against the unit owner or Condo Association by Mr [redacted] for failing to pay or uphold their end of the agreement and Mr [redacted] would not charge any interest or additional fees for the extra work provided or five months of non-payment of his servicesAdditionally, Mr [redacted] would not place a lien on the property or pursue any legal action for having to involve his attorney in resolving the disputeIn the end, both sides compromised to quickly and easily resolve the dispute in a mutually beneficial and favorable manner.? The whole issue should have ended back in late January after the parties' respective counsel mediated the matter and came to a quick resolution; however, it appears that the Board Representative is now looking to cause reputational and financial harm to Mr [redacted] through this complaint due to his unhappiness with his counsel's advice on the matter.At the end of the day, the Board would not have paid Mr [redacted] 's bill if their attorney did not feel there was equal blame on both sides leading to the underlying issues and disputeAs such, this complaint is completely frivolous and absent of any merit appropriate for publication to the public.? The [redacted] Board Representative hired Mr [redacted] at a cut rate to provide a specific service that the unit owner took issue with after the work had been materially completed.? Instead of finding a working solution to the identified issues with Mr [redacted] and compromising on a mutually agreeable outcome, the Board moved forward with other professionals and then tried to avoid paying Mr [redacted] for the work he provided as requested.Only after Mr [redacted] involved his attorney did the Board agree to fulfill its contractual obligations and pay Mr [redacted] what was owedObviously, being unhappy with the arrangement is understandable since both sides had to sacrifice in order to resolve this matterMr [redacted] has his own frustrations with the Board Representative due to all the challenges and difficulty he experienced with such a small job that should have taken several days to complete at most.? Mr [redacted] spent more time and money on this job than initially retained for so he ended up losing money when everything was said and done so he is equally frustrated by the matterMr [redacted] now finds himself spending even more funds on his attorney to defend himself in this new matter so he's even more frustrated that this ordeal continues to linger because the [redacted] Board Representative is unhappy with its counsel's advice to pay a legitimate debt they rightfully owed.? However, given that the Board didn't have a lien placed on the property and was able to avoid any legal action regarding this matter, it was mutually beneficial for them to just pay was what originally owed rather than litigate this matter in courtWith that said, it was best for Mr [redacted] to take what was owed and forgo anything else he might have been entitled to if he were to pursue this matter in a court of law.Consequently, this complaint should be dismissed as a frivolous attempt to discredit Mr [redacted] 's name and reputation and a veiled attempt to cause financial harm to his business.? If the Revdex.com intends to publish this complaint in part or in whole, many parts of its contents should be redacted as irrelevant and unrelated to the actual dispute in questionThe Board Representative speaks to a number of irrelevant and non-material matters that only serve to cause reputation harm to Mr [redacted] 's name and business.? The complaint includes wild accusations that Mr [redacted] provides "poor work" to other parties because he had his attorney contact a customer about not paying a legitimate invoice - such an accusation is baseless and completely irrelevant to the matter in questionHe takes issue with Mr [redacted] being a dwelling contractor which is completely unrelated to this matter whatsoever.? Additionally, there is no relevance whatsoever for the Board Representative's opinion about other customers and jobs just because he was unhappy with Mr [redacted] As such, any inclusion of this would be biased and pure conjecture not appropriate for the public domain.? Furthermore, the Board Representative talks to Mr [redacted] 's employment matters that he is has no knowledge of whatsoeverMr [redacted] 's scheduling difficulties were the result of the unit owner's inflexible and unaccommodating schedule completely unrelated to Mr [redacted] 's personal business mattersAs such, those should be omitted as well from any public disclosure.?

The board of directors at [redacted] ***? voted (it was NOT a unanimous vote) to remove the complaint because All City Flooring decided to take the tactic to threaten lawsuit if we did not remove the complaint.? Rather than pay a lawyer to fight him, it was decided to ask for removal of? the complaint

Mr*** is an expert tile installer and contractor with over a decade of experience with an excellent professional reputation for providing quality work and craftsmanship at a very fair and reasonable cost to his customersMr*** is regularly contracted to perform many intricate and
complex tiling jobs for numerous large-scale new builds and projects; however, he still provides tile work on a smaller scale such as the jobs underlying this complaint. To begin, the allegations in the attached complaint are nothing more than a veiled attempt to cause financial and reputation harm to Mr***'s name and business in the hope that publication of the complaint damages his professional standing in the industryAs a result, this complaint should be dismissed without any of its contents being published. With that said, Mr*** agrees that he was hired by a Board Representative of *** *** for a small tile job as outlined in the complaintAs briefly noted in the complaint, Mr*** was initially hired by the Board Representative who submitted this complaint to complete one small tile job in one of the units at the *** *** *** *** building. Mr*** gave the Board Representative an extremely favorable estimate to complete the job due to its size and lack of complexity so the Board Representative retained Mr*** to move forward. After Mr*** was retained to provide the tile work, the Board Representative instructed Mr*** what was to be done, what materials were to be used, and how the job should be completed. Mr*** executed the Board Representative's instructions on that first job with no issues or problems whatsoever. The tile job was a small, simple, and straightforward job with no real complexity whatsoever so Mr*** was able to provide the work quickly and at a very low cost given his level of expertise in completing such a small job. After completing the first job, the Board Representative didn't have any complaints or issues with the timing or workmanship of the tile work provided by Mr*** which is evident by the fact that Mr*** was then retained to provide additional tile work on a second unit of the building. Had the Board Representative had any issues or complaints about any of Mr***'s work product, professionalism, or other aspects of his services provided, Mr*** would not have been hired to complete the same job for another unit of the buildingAdditionally, the second job had the same issue as the first unit so the Board Representative instructed Mr*** to perform exactly the same type of tile work in the second unit as the first. The Board Representative and Mr*** agreed that the tile work for the second unit would only be $1,which included all materials and supplies so the cost of labor was barely over $1,dollarsUnlike the first job, Mr*** had numerous difficulties and problems working with the owner of the unit for the second job which ultimately led to the underlying dispute and prevented the job from getting done in a timely manner according to the original plan. First off, Mr*** was instructed by the Board Representative to perform the same work on the second job as the firstMore specifically, Mr*** was instructed by the Board Representative to use the same materials and overall design and install the tiles in the same manner as the previous job. As such, Mr*** began the project as instructed using the same materials and installation design as the first job; however, after Mr*** nearly completed the job except for final steps including grouting the tile, he was informed that the unit owner wanted changes made to the tile installation and work performedMr*** attempted to accommodate the unit owner's issues and changes to the planned work; however, the unit owner was extremely difficult to work with and never home during regular business hours for Mr*** to complete the job. Despite those challenges and problems, Mr*** completed the majority of the job and was only unable to finish the work due to the unit owner's odd hours and unavailability to make her home available to access during regular business hours. The unit owner worked at night and slept during the day so she would not allow Mr*** to gain access to the unit to complete the job during regular business hours. Regardless of these challenges, Mr*** made every effort to address the unit owner's issues and accommodate her inflexible schedule; however, a job that should have taken several days turned into several weeks on top of the unnecessary and unreasonable changes the unit owner wanted. Mr*** is a small business owner with many clients and ongoing jobs so the delay caused by the unit owner and her scheduling inflexibility prevented Mr*** from completing the job according to the initial plan. In addition to those challenges, the unit owner identified what she felt were issues with the tile work provided by Mr***She claimed that the tiles were uneven and that there were problems with the trim work behind the washer and dryer. However, the tiles were not, in fact, uneven in any way; rather, the slight (microscopic) change in gradation that is industry standard for a job like this were due to the fact that the tiles are not precision milled (an industry standard for the tiles chosen by the Board Representative), the old age of the building and unlevel nature of the subfloor (a factor that was beyond Mr***'s control), and the natural bevel in the tile themselves. All of these factors contributed to the slight gradation changes in tiles that are completely and all within industry standard for this type of job. On multiple occasions, Mr*** explained all of this to the unit owner and the Board Representative; however, the unit owner wanted the work redone at no costDuring this same time, Mr*** was informed that his trim work had come unglued and that they were moving forward with another professional to complete the job. After hearing the new issue with the trim work and viewing a picture of what was provided, Mr*** concluded that the unit owner or Board Representative manually pried the wood trim up to make it look like it had come apartGiven the steps that were taken at installation and the delay in the timing of the issue being reported to Mr***, he was certain that his trim work did not simply come unglued or come apart; rather, he was positive that the trim work was pried up with physical assistance by the unit owner or another party to create the appearance of poor workmanship. At that point, it was clear to Mr*** that the unit owner and/or Board Representative were actively attempting to create untruthful and illegitimate reasons not to pay Mr*** for the work he had provided. Additionally, the Board Representative and unit owner moved forward with retaining other professionals while Mr*** had indicated he was willing to help resolve the issuesHowever, the unilaterally moved forward with other professionals without giving Mr*** an opportunity to complete the work in a mutually satisfactory manner the parties could agree toWith any job, where changes occur or problems arise, a plan must first be agreed to before completing the next steps so Mr*** was actively attempting to address the issues when they changed course. When it was clear that the unit owner and Board Representative had retained other professionals, Mr*** sent them a bill for the agreed upon amount for the services providedAfter several months of excuses and putting Mr*** off, the *** *** Board sent him a letter indicating they would not be paying him for his services as previously agreed toAt that time, Mr*** contacted the undersigned attorney to help resolve the dispute. I contacted the Board Representative about the issue in an attempt to quickly resolve the dispute given the small amount of money in question and the respective issues both parties hadAfter contacting the Board Representative, I was contacted by their attorney which resulted in a quick resolution after a 10-minute phone call. The Board's attorney and I both agreed that there were mutual issues with both parties conduct and actions that resulted in the problems identified and dispute in questionAs a result, we mutually agreed that the parties should agree to resolve this matter for the original $1,amount owed without any further costs or fees for our assistance or involvement. No legal action would be taken against the unit owner or Condo Association by Mr*** for failing to pay or uphold their end of the agreement and Mr*** would not charge any interest or additional fees for the extra work provided or five months of non-payment of his servicesAdditionally, Mr*** would not place a lien on the property or pursue any legal action for having to involve his attorney in resolving the disputeIn the end, both sides compromised to quickly and easily resolve the dispute in a mutually beneficial and favorable manner. The whole issue should have ended back in late January after the parties' respective counsel mediated the matter and came to a quick resolution; however, it appears that the Board Representative is now looking to cause reputational and financial harm to Mr*** through this complaint due to his unhappiness with his counsel's advice on the matter.At the end of the day, the Board would not have paid Mr***'s bill if their attorney did not feel there was equal blame on both sides leading to the underlying issues and disputeAs such, this complaint is completely frivolous and absent of any merit appropriate for publication to the public. The *** *** Board Representative hired Mr*** at a cut rate to provide a specific service that the unit owner took issue with after the work had been materially completed. Instead of finding a working solution to the identified issues with Mr*** and compromising on a mutually agreeable outcome, the Board moved forward with other professionals and then tried to avoid paying Mr*** for the work he provided as requested.Only after Mr*** involved his attorney did the Board agree to fulfill its contractual obligations and pay Mr*** what was owedObviously, being unhappy with the arrangement is understandable since both sides had to sacrifice in order to resolve this matterMr*** has his own frustrations with the Board Representative due to all the challenges and difficulty he experienced with such a small job that should have taken several days to complete at most. Mr*** spent more time and money on this job than initially retained for so he ended up losing money when everything was said and done so he is equally frustrated by the matterMr*** now finds himself spending even more funds on his attorney to defend himself in this new matter so he's even more frustrated that this ordeal continues to linger because the *** *** Board Representative is unhappy with its counsel's advice to pay a legitimate debt they rightfully owed. However, given that the Board didn't have a lien placed on the property and was able to avoid any legal action regarding this matter, it was mutually beneficial for them to just pay was what originally owed rather than litigate this matter in courtWith that said, it was best for Mr*** to take what was owed and forgo anything else he might have been entitled to if he were to pursue this matter in a court of law.Consequently, this complaint should be dismissed as a frivolous attempt to discredit Mr***'s name and reputation and a veiled attempt to cause financial harm to his business. If the Revdex.com intends to publish this complaint in part or in whole, many parts of its contents should be redacted as irrelevant and unrelated to the actual dispute in questionThe Board Representative speaks to a number of irrelevant and non-material matters that only serve to cause reputation harm to Mr***'s name and business. The complaint includes wild accusations that Mr*** provides "poor work" to other parties because he had his attorney contact a customer about not paying a legitimate invoice - such an accusation is baseless and completely irrelevant to the matter in questionHe takes issue with Mr*** being a dwelling contractor which is completely unrelated to this matter whatsoever. Additionally, there is no relevance whatsoever for the Board Representative's opinion about other customers and jobs just because he was unhappy with Mr***As such, any inclusion of this would be biased and pure conjecture not appropriate for the public domain. Furthermore, the Board Representative talks to Mr***'s employment matters that he is has no knowledge of whatsoeverMr***'s scheduling difficulties were the result of the unit owner's inflexible and unaccommodating schedule completely unrelated to Mr***'s personal business mattersAs such, those should be omitted as well from any public disclosure.

The board of directors at [redacted]? voted (it was NOT a unanimous vote) to remove the complaint because All City Flooring decided to take the tactic to threaten lawsuit if we did not remove the complaint.? Rather than pay a lawyer to fight him, it was decided to ask for removal of? the complaint