ALJDEC - Licensing

2023A-13181-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2025-07-11

8IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

Ryan McMahon

COMPLAINANT

v.

Pima Ventures LLC

License No. ROC 291256

RESPONDENT.

No. 2023A-13181-CHC-ROC

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION

HEARING: June 9, 2025 with the record held open until June 23, 2025 for the purpose of receiving written closing statements.

APPEARANCES: Paul A. Loucks, Esq. appeared on behalf of Ryan McMahon (hereinafter “Complainant”). Jeremy T. Shorbe, Esq. appeared on behalf of Pima Ventures LLC (hereinafter “Respondent”).

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Velva Moses-Thompson

_____________________________________________________________________

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. On or about May 10, 2024, the Registrar issued a Notice of Hearing in the above-entitled matter, setting the matter for hearing on June 12, 2024.

2. The hearing was continued to June 9, 2025.

3. At hearing, Complainant testified on behalf of himself. Investigator Smith testified regarding his investigation of the complaint. Respondent presented the testimony of Hector Rubio and James Norden.

4. Respondent performed construction work on a home located at 14771 W. Red Feather Lane, Marana, AZ 85653 (hereinafter “the McMahon hone”).

5. The McMahoon home was subsequently sold to Complainant.

6. On or about December 5, 2023, Complainant filed a complaint against

Respondent alleging poor workmanship in connection with a home remodeling project.

7. The complaint was assigned to an investigator for the Registrar, John Smith (hereinafter “Investigator Smith”).

8. It is undisputed that the work performed by Respondent occurred within two years of the date of the complaint submitted by Ryan McMahon.

9. On January 16, 2024, Investigator Smith conducted a job-site inspection. Investigator Smith discovered that the project included the replacement of a water heater, the replacement of windows, and building decks that are more than 30 in above grade.

10. Investigator Smith concluded that Respondent was required to obtain a permit for the work that it performed. Investigator Smith substantiated six items from the complaint.

11. On January 22, 2024, the Registrar issued a Directive to Respondent directing Respondent to correct complaint items 1, 6, 19, 20, 22, and 23, by appropriate means, no later than February 12, 2024. See the Registrar’s administrative record, pgs. 73-82.

12. On January 31, 2024, Complainant provided a third party inspection report to Investigator Smith. Thereafter, Investigator Smith substantiated complaint items 9, 11, 13, and 18 that were related to the plumbing.

13. On February 6, 2024, the Registrar issued an Amended Directive directing Respondent to correct complaint items 1, 6, 9, 11, 13, 18, 19, 20, 22, and 23, by appropriate means no later than March 11, 2024. See the Registrar’s administrative record, pgs. 85-96.

14. On February 12, 2024, Respondent submitted its first request for a permit.

See Investigator Smith’s testimony on the second hearing audio record at 10:00 to 15:00 minutes. The permit application did not include a description of the framing and a description of the modifications to the plumbing. A building official from Pima County stated, “Upon review of the application, the district had determined that all of the information or documentation required has not been submitted. As such, the application is not complete.” See id.

15. On March 21, 2024, Investigator Smith conducted a complaint job-site inspection. Investigator Smith observed that Respondent performed some work, but the condition of the property did not meet workmanship standards. Investigator Smith observed that there were still areas of the subfloor, specifically noticeable in the kitchen and near the living room area that were soft and deflective excessively wavy. There were areas where Respondent had not performed work that were soft and areas around the toilet and the part of the kitchen area vinyl flooring was removed, then reinstalled with a visible seam across the full width of the kitchen approximately 8. Investigator Smith observed that Respondent completed some work on Complaint Items 9, 11, 13, and 18. However, Respondent had not started work on Complaint Items 19, 20, 22, and 23.

16. During his investigation, Investigator Smith discovered that Respondent hired an unlicensed contractor, Richard Gaines, to perform work. Investigator Smith also discovered that Respondent contracted to perform plumbing and electrical work. However, Respondent holds a B general contractor’s license which requires that all work related to plumbing and electrical be subcontracted to appropriately licensed contractors.

17. On March 28, 2024, the Registrar issued a Citation against Respondent’s license alleging that Puma had violated Ariz. Rev. Stat. 32-1154(A)(3) (specifically, Ariz. Admin. Code section R4-9-108(A) and (B); Ariz. Rev. Stat. §§ 32-1154 (A)(2)(b),(9)(A),(A)(16), and (A)(22).

18. Respondent field a timely response to the Citation.

19. The matter was referred to the Office of Administrative Hearings for an evidentiary hearing.

20. A hearing was held on June 9, 2025.

Testimony of James Norden

21. Mr. Norden is a sales representative for Apollo Flooring.

Mr. Norden also worked for Capitol Flooring as a sales representative. Mr. Norden believes that his operations manager walked the McMahon home before it was sold and did not notice anything out of the ordinary. Mr. Norden After M. McMahon complained, Capitol Flooring installed new plywood and redid the vinyl. Capitol returned to

Mr. McMahon’s home half a dozen times. Mr. Norden stated that his installers told him that Mr. McMahon had a shot gun and was intimidating. Mr. Norden stated that his installers told him that he was always smoking weed and he was aggressive.

22. Mr. Norden stated that one occasion, his workers went out to repair the subfloor and Mr. McMahon told them to use the plywood in his front yard and Capitol told him that they had their own materials, and as a result, Mr. McMahon sent the workers away.

23. On another occasion, Mr. Norden told them that a licensed plumber was needed to reset he toilet. Mr. Norden did not know that a licensed plumber was needed to reset the toilet.

24. Mr. Norden admitted on cross examination that an instance of a floor joist rotting underneath the floorboard could cause an area of the flooring to be soft.

25. Mr. Norden stated that he was on the job site on just one occasion.

Mr. Norden testified that if work needed to be performed around the toilet, the toilets would have to be removed.

Testimony of Hector Rubio

26. Mr. Rubio is the qualifying party for Respondent. Mr. Rubio stated that he received the Directive on January 22, 2024. After receiving the Directive, he immediately started working on plans to get a permit for the work. Usually, the plans are created by an architect or draftman but because he was attempting to follow the directive, he completed them himself. Mr. Rubio stated that once are submitted to the jurisdiction, they have 30 days to review it.

27. Mr. Rubio stated that he did not believe that permits were required. Respondent replaced an old deck that was rotted out. Respondent replaced the water heater. Mr. Rubio stated that Respondent did not hire a plumber because he was replacing the hub that connects to the toilet. Mr. Rubio stated that to his knowledge, “Puma did not touch rough plumbing.”

28. Administrative notice is taken of the Registrar’s public website. According to the information available on the website on July 11, 2025, Respondent’s license was first issued on March 28, 2014, and is active. Such prior License record also shows that there is only one open complaint against Respondent. Such prior License record further shows that one complaint resulted in discipline against Respondent’s license. Such prior License record further shows that one complaint was closed after being settled by Respondent or withdrawn by the complainant after the issuance of a corrective work order.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

This matter lies within the Registrar’s jurisdiction. See Ariz. Rev. Stat. §§ 32-1101 et seq.

Complainant bears the burden of proof to establish Respondent’s statutory violation by a preponderance of the evidence. See Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 41-1092.07(G)(2); A.A.C. R2-19-119(A) and Ariz. Admin. Code R2-19-119(B)(1); see also Vazanno v. Superior Court, 74 Ariz. 369, 372, 249 P.2d 837 (1952). “A preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.” Morris K. Udall, Arizona Law of Evidence § 5 (1960).

The Administrative Law Judge may consider the Registrar’s Administrative

Record. See Ariz. Admin. Code R4-9-118.

The preponderance of the evidence shows that Respondent did not

obtain the required permits for the project, which is a violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(2)(b).

The preponderance of the evidence shows that Respondent did not perform

the work in a professional and workmanlike manner, which is a violation of Ariz. Admin. Code R4-9-108(A), and thereby of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(3).

5. The preponderance of the evidence shows that Respondent did not perform

the work in accordance applicable building codes and professional industry standards, which is a violation of Ariz. Admin. Code R4-9-108(B), and thereby of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(3).

6. The preponderance of the evidence shows that Respondent attempted to

evade Ariz. Rev. Stat. Title 32, Chapter 10, by aiding an unlicensed person, which is a violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(9)(A).

7. The preponderance of the evidence shows that Respondent contracted

beyond the scope of its B-General Residential Contractor’s license, which is a violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154 (A)(16).

8. The preponderance of the evidence shows that Respondent failed to comply with the Registrar’s Directive without valid justification, which is a violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(22).

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Based on the foregoing, it is recommended that on the effective date of the Order, the Registrar shall suspend License No. 291256 issued to Pima Ventures LLC, for three days. It is further recommended that the Registrar require Respondent to pay the sum of $500.00 as a civil penalty pursuant to Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(E).

It is further recommended that if Respondent fails to pay the entire amount of the civil penalty on or before thirty days following the effective date of the Registrar’s final order, the Registrar revoke Respondent’s license, effective on such deadline date.

No future license shall be issued to any entity consisting of persons associated with Respondent, as defined in Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1101(A)(7), unless Respondent tenders payment of any outstanding prior civil penalty.

Pursuant to A.R.S. § 41-1092.08(I), the licensee may accept the Administrative Law Judge Decision by advising the Office of Administrative Hearings in writing not more than ten (10) days after receiving the decision. If the licensee accepts the Administrative Law Judge Decision, the decision shall be certified as the final decision by the Office of Administrative Hearings.

In the event of certification of the Administrative Law Judge Decision by the Director of the Office of Administrative Hearings, the effective date of the Order will be forty (40) days from the date of that certification.

Done this day, July 11, 2025.

/s/ Velva Moses-Thompson

Administrative Law Judge

Transmitted by either mail, e-mail, or facsimile to:

Tom Cole, Director

Registrar of Contractors

Paul A. Loucks, Esq.

Deconcini McDonald Yetmin & Lacy PC

[email redacted]

Jason McMahon

[email redacted]

Jeremy T. Shorbe, Esq.

BURRIS & MACOMBER, PLLC

[email redacted]

By: OAH Staff