ALJDEC - Licensing
2023A-13800-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2025-07-11
IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
Ryan McMahon
COMPLAINANT,
v.
Endurance Heating and Cooling, LLC
License No. ROC 334784
RESPONDENT.
No. 2023A-13800-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 Endurance Heating and Cooling, 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 Carlos Ramirez.
4. Respondent performed construction work on the property located at 14771 W. Red Feather Lane, Marana, AZ 85653 (hereinafter “the McMahon hone”).
5. On or about December 5, 2023, Complainant filed a complaint against Respondent alleging poor workmanship in connection with a home remodeling project. The Registrar assigned the complaint to one of its investigators, John Smith (hereinafter “Investigator Smith”).
6. It is undisputed that the work performed by Respondent occurred within two years of the date of the Complaint submitted by Ryan McMahon.
7. On December 5, 2023, Investigator Smith issued a warning letter to Respondent because Respondent failed to obtain the required permit for the project. Investigator Smith discovered that the project including replacing the HVAC equipment and ducting.
8. On January 16, 2024, Investigator Smith conducted a job-site inspection.
9. On January 22, 2024, the Registrar issued a Written Directive to Respondent directing Respondent to correct Complaint Items 2 and 4, by appropriate means, no later than February 12, 2024. See the Registrar’s Administrative Record, pgs. 287-295.
10. On February 14, 2024, Investigator Smith issued an Amended Written Directive extending the deadline for compliance to March 11, 2024.
11. On March 21, 2024, Investigator Smith conducted a compliance job-site inspection. Respondent’s qualifying party, Albaro Lopez Varela, was present. Investigator Smith discovered that Respondent obtained a permit that specifically provided, “Upsize all duct work.” Mr. Varela acknowledged that the only duct work that was replaced was the flexible duct work under the house. Mr. Varela acknowledged that all duct work within the house framing had not been replaced and the exterior duct work was not replaced.
12. Investigator Smith concluded that Respondent failed to correct Complaint Items 2 and 4.
13. On March 29, 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 R4-9-108(A) and (B); Ariz. Rev. Stat. §§ 32- 1154(A)(2)(A), (A)(2)(B), and (A)(22).
14. Respondent filed a timely answer to the Citation.
15. The matter was referred to the Office of Administrative Hearings for an evidentiary hearing.
16. Complainant explained that Respondent performed poor work in connection with the HVAC equipment and ducting project.
17. Investigator Smith testified consistently with his inspection notes and the Directive.
18. Mr. Rivera explained that he worked for Endurance toward the end of 2023. Mr. Rivera’s job responsibilities included scheduling, addressing service issues, sending out estimates, ordering materials, and dealing with clients. Mr. Rivera also worked for the owner of McMahon property was sold to Complainant. Mr. Rivera spoke with Respondent’s qualifying party who led him to believe that Respondent placed an existing 5-ton heat pump with a new 5-ton heat pump. Mr. Rivera is not an HVAC technician. However, based upon his experience in the industry, a rule of thumb is that for every 500 square feet, a half ton heat pump is necessary. Because the McMahon property was 2560 square feet, a five ton unit was needed. Mr. Valera did not believe that a permit was needed because they were replacing a 5-ton pump with a new 5-ton pump.
19. 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 September 15, 2021, and is revoked. Such prior License record also reflects that there is one open complaint against Respondent’s license, and two complaint that resulted in discipline against Respondent’s. Such prior License record reflects that three complaints against License No. 280264 were resolved or settled by Respondent or withdrawn by the complainant after issuance of a corrective work or formal citation. Respondent’s disciplinary history is considered an aggravating factor in the imposition of discipline and penalties.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Registrar has jurisdiction over this matter, pursuant to Ariz. Rev. Stat. §
32-1101, et seq., which authorizes the Registrar to impose disciplinary sanctions against licenses for violations of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154.
The revoked status of Respondent’s license does not deprive Complainant
of his right to prosecute the Complaint or prevent the Registrar from determining the merits of Complainant’s complaint. This matter lies within the Registrar’s jurisdiction.
To warrant such sanctions by the Registrar, Complainant must demonstrate
by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated the statutory section cited. Proof by a “preponderance” means that “the evidence is sufficient to persuade the finder of fact that the proposition is more likely true than not.” In re: Arnold and Baker Farms, 177 B.R. 648 (9th Cir. BAP (Ariz.) 1994). See also Culpepper v. State of Arizona, 187 Ariz. 431, 930 P.2d 508 (App. 1996). It is “evidence which is of greater weight or more convincing than the evidence which is offered in opposition to it; that is, evidence which as a whole shows that the fact sought to be proved is more probable than not.” Black’s Law Dictionary 1182 (Rev. 6th ed. 1990).
The preponderance of the evidence shows that Respondent did not
perform construction in compliance with approved plans, which is a violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(2)(a).
5. Complainant established that Respondent failed to obtain the required permit for the project at the time that the Directive was issued. Complainant thereby potentially established cause to suspend or revoke Respondent’s contractor’s license under Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(2)(b).
6. The preponderance of the evidence shows that Respondent did not perform the work in a professional and workmanlike manner in violation of Ariz. Admin. Code R4-9-108(A), and thereby of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(3).
7. The preponderance of the evidence shows that Respondent did not perform
the work in accordance with 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).
8. The preponderance of the evidence shows that Respondent failed to correct Complaint Items 2 and 4 from 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 in this matter, License No. 334784 of Endurance Heating and Cooling, LLC
is revoked.
It is further recommended that the Registrar require Respondent to pay the sum of $500.00 as a civil penalty.
It is further recommended that 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