ALJDEC - Licensing
2024A-06717-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2025-08-11
IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
Michelle Stalker,
COMPLAINANT,
v.
Prime Construction Group LLC
License No. ROC 314462,
RESPONDENT.
No. 2024A-06717-CHC-ROC
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION
HEARING: July 21, 2025.
APPEARANCES:
For Complainant: Michelle Stalker.
For Respondent: Barney Hernandez.
For the Registrar of Contractors: Investigator Daniel Otero.
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Samuel Fox
EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: Administrative notice was taken of the Notice of Hearing Packet submitted by the Registrar of Contractors. Complainant’s Exhibits. Respondent’s Exhibits.
_____________________________________________________________________
FINDINGS OF FACT
Prime Construction Group LLC (Respondent) was the holder of License No. 314462 issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (Registrar) on July 19, 2017.
On or about March 29, 2024, Michelle Stalker (Complainant) entered into a contract with Respondent for, among other things, kitchen and bathroom renovations. The contract included a schedule, showing the project would be completed by May 17.
On or about June 12, 2024, Complainant filed a Licensed Complaint Form with the Registrar, claiming abandonment and poor work.
On June 13, 2024, Complainant informed Respondent that she wanted to cancel their contract, effective immediately.
The Registrar assigned the complaint to Investigator Daniel Otero, who conducted the jobsite inspection on July 16, 2024, and Respondent was present.
On July 31, 2024, Investigator Otero issued a Written Directive From the Registrar to Respondent, directing Respondent to correct the identified deficiencies in an appropriate manner.
Respondent was given several extensions, and a compliance inspection was conducted on December 4, 2024. During the inspection, every compliance item was deemed not corrected.
On December 13, 2024, the Registrar issued a Citation against Respondent, finding cause to charge Respondent with violations of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(2)(a); A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3), specifically R4-9-108(a); and A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22).
Respondent submitted an Answer to the Citation on December 27, 2024.
The Registrar referred the matter to the Office of Administrative Hearings, an independent state agency, for an evidentiary hearing, which was conducted on July 21, 2025.
Investigator Otero testified in support of his findings.
Complainant and her witnesses, Walter Orellana and Mark Ross, testified consistently with Investigator Otero’s findings.
Respondent’s witness testified that Complainant was responsible for permits, but he believed that none of their work required a permit. Respondent’s witness testified that Respondent was fired from the job days or weeks before the complaint was filed, and therefore, he should not be held accountable and that any work done was out of kindness. Respondent’s witness testified that Respondent never gave an estimated completion date, and he testified that he did not agree that Respondent agreed to move any electrical components, only agreeing to replace existing outlets and switches. Respondent’s witness testified that Complainant requested many changes to the work, but Respondent did not provide any change orders. Respondent’s witness testified that some of the scope was removed from their work, including the counter tops and backsplash in the kitchen.
Respondent’s witness complained that Respondent did not have enough time to complete the job. He testified that it should have been a 4-month job, but Respondent was given approximately 6.5 months to complete the job.
Respondent’s witness discussed going above and beyond even though none of the directive items were deemed corrected.
Respondent’s witness’s testimony was deemed not credible due to inconsistencies and inaccurate representations.
Administrative notice was taken of Respondent’s prior License record on July 23, 2025. According to that record, Respondent’s License No. 314462 was active. The license had two open complaints, one disciplined case, and three resolved/settled complaints on record.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
This matter lies within the Registrar’s jurisdiction.
Complainant bears the burden of proof to establish Respondent’s statutory violations by a preponderance of the evidence. Respondent bears the burden of proof to establish an affirmative defense by a preponderance of the evidence.
“A preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.”
For the purposes of this hearing, Respondent only had notice of the alleged violations in the Citation. Accordingly, this Tribunal can only find violations of law that appeared in the Citation.
Contractors are expected to know what work requires a permit, and contractors are expected to abide by the rules governing their profession, including those that require permits for certain work. Regardless of who is responsible for getting the permits, contractors should not perform work that requires a permit without a permit.
Change orders protect both parties to a contract. They ensure that the service-providing contractor has a record of work done and a documentary basis for payment; they also ensure that the homeowner consents to work being done and amount charged for the service.
In correcting work pursuant to a Written Directive From the Registrar, a contractor cannot damage property or create additional workmanship issues. Any damage or new deficiencies in workmanship must be fixed before the directive period ends. Attempting corrective work on a Directive item incurs a responsibility to perform that corrective work competently and in compliance with applicable standards. A new complaint and Directive are not required to hold a respondent responsible for its workmanship deficiencies when attempting such repairs. When a licensed contractor attempts repairs pursuant to a Directive from the Registrar, the respondent accepts responsibility for conducting repairs appropriately even if it would not have been responsible but for the attempted repairs.
The preponderance of the evidence established that Respondent departed from or disregarded building codes in violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(2)(b).
The preponderance of the evidence established that Respondent failed to perform all work in a professional and workmanlike manner in violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(A).
Despite having had approximately four months to complete the directive work, the preponderance of the evidence established that Respondent failed to take appropriate corrective action following a written directive from the Registrar in violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22).
“The registrar may impose a civil penalty of not to exceed $500 on a contractor for each violation of subsection A, paragraph 22 of this section.” If a licensee fails to pay the civil penalty, their license is automatically revoked “thirty days after the effective date of the order providing for the civil penalty.” Additionally, any “person who is or was named on a license. . . may not receive a new license under this chapter until the entire civil penalty is paid.”
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Based on the foregoing, it is recommended that on the effective date of the Order, the Registrar shall suspend for five days Respondent’s License No. 314462.
It is further recommended that the Registrar require Respondent to pay the sum of $500.00 as a civil penalty pursuant to A.R.S. § 32-1154(E).
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, August 11, 2025.
/s/ Samuel Fox
Administrative Law Judge
Transmitted by either mail, e-mail, or facsimile to:
Tom Cole, Director
Registrar of Contractors
Prime Construction Group LLC
[email redacted]
Michelle Stalker
[email redacted]
By: OAH Staff