ALJDEC decisions subject to certification as final

2024A-06941-RFA-LS-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2026-04-29

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

Francisco Sandoval,

COMPLAINANT

Variety C.R. Floor Covering LLC

License No. ROC 342335,

RESPONDENT

No. 2024A-06941-RFA-LS-ROC

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION

HEARING: April 15, 2026

APPEARANCES: Complainant Francisco Sandoval appeared on his own behalf. Carlos Garcia Gomez appeared on behalf of Respondent Variety C.R. Floor Covering LLC. Arizona Assistant Attorney General, Mona Baskin appeared via Google Meet on behalf of the Arizona Registrar of Contractors.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Adam D. Stone

EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: Registrar of Contractors Exhibits 1-13 were admitted into evidence.

_____________________________________________________________________

FINDINGS OF FACT

The Arizona Registrar of Contractors (Registrar) issued License No. 342335 to Respondent Variety C.R. Floor Covering LLC.

In March 2024, Complainant entered into an oral contract with Respondent as later evidenced by an invoice to install tile at his residence. Later, the Registrar received a Complaint against Respondent from Complainant alleging poor work with the project.

As a result of the workmanship complaint, on November 26, 2024, the Registrar issued a Citation against Respondent charging possible violations of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(a); A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(9)(a); A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(13); and A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22).

Respondent did not respond to the Citation and on December 16, 2024, the Registrar issued its Final Administrative Decision and Order (Default), suspending Respondent’s license for 5 days, and ordering a $250.00 civil penalty.

Complainant then filed a claim with the Residential Contractors’ Recovery Fund (Fund) on or about In September 2025.

The Registrar issued a Notice of Administrative Award on January 16, 2026, finding that Complainant’s was entitled to a payout of $24,877.00. Respondent timely requested a hearing on or about January 30, 2026. Complainant did not contest the amount of the administrative payout. The Registrar referred the matter to the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) for an evidentiary hearing.

The hearing was held on April 14, 2026.

Madelyn Hayes, was a Legal Assistant II for the Registrar and reviewed Complainant’s Recovery Fund claim. Ms. Hayes testified that she reviewed the underlying complaint, and bids submitted by Complainant in calculating Complainant’s actual damages.

Ms. Hayes testified as to the work which was found to be not within workmanship standards as follows:

Complaint Item: 2 - Some tile are chipped /cracked

Investigator’s Initial Observation: Verified. Investigator observed a chipped tile in front of the kitchen island, in the dining room, the great room, hall leading to the bathroom and in the front room on the east side. The Respondent will need to correct this by the appropriate means.

Compliance Observation: Chip tile still in front of kitchen island. It appears as though an attempt to fill it with grout was made but ship is still visible

Governing Rule: Violation of any rule adopted by the Registrar; Namely A.A.C. R4- 9-109.

CORRECTED X NOT CORRECTED

Complaint Item: 4 - When tile meet in a cross + some tile is too high or to low

Investigator’s Initial Observation: Verified. Investigator observed lippage in front of the toilet in the hall bathroom, in front of the refrigerator on the right side, in front of the hall closet, in front of the office closet door. The Respondent will need to correct this by the appropriate means.

Compliance Observation: There is still lipage in front of the office door and in the dining room area. It appears Respondent attempted to conceal the lipage by adding grout however the tiles are still not level

Governing Rule: Violation of any rule adopted by the Registrar; Namely A.A.C. R4-9-109.

CORRECTED X NOT CORRECTED

...

Ms. Hayes testified that Complainant had met the requirements for a Recovery Fund payout.

Further, Ms. Hayes testified that Complainant paid a total of $9,190.00.

Ms. Hayes testified that Complainant supplied two bids covering the repairs, namely, Innovation Tile in the amount of $24,877.00, and Dynasty Floor LLC in the amount of $30,877.50.

In addition, Ms. Hayes testified that despite Innovation Tile being suspended after submission of the bid, that had no effect on the accuracy of the bid.

Ms. Hayes testified that she reached out a Registrar investigator who opined that the bids were acceptable.

Ms. Hayes testified that based upon this recommendation from the investigator, she chose to move forward with that bid.

Based upon all the information above, Ms. Hayes performed the following calculation:

Original Contract and change order price: $8,000.00

Less Payment on contract: - $9,190.00

Total unpaid balance: ($1,190.00)

Total Compensable Bid Amount: $24,877.00

Less the unpaid balance on contract: - ($0.00)

Compensable “Actual Damages”: $24,877.00.

Ms. Hayes testified that due to an error, there was an additional $1,300.00 which should have been deducted from the Innovation Tile bid because it included work which was not a part of the original contract. Thus, the amount awarded should be $23,577.00.

Complainant testified that he agreed to receive $23,577.00 based upon the revised calculation. Further, Complainant testified that the whole project had to be redone because there were no more exact tiles to make a replacement. Finally, Complainant testified that all payments he made, whether it be to Mr. Garcia Gomez’s father or sister, were for work done on this project.

Mr. Garcia Gomez testified on behalf of Respondent, and he vehemently denied that he received $9,190.00 on the project claiming he only deposited $7,280.00 into the company bank account, and that the other payments went to his father and sister.

Mr. Garcia Gomez also testified that he did not believe it was fair that different tile was to be used and that the bid was for the entire flooring to be replaced, rather than the affected area.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

This matter lies within the Registrar’s jurisdiction.

A.R.S. § 32-1132.01(B)(1) provides that “[a]n award from the residential contractors’ recovery fund may not exceed the actual damages suffered by the claimant as a direct result of a contractor’s violation. Actual damages: 1. May not exceed an amount necessary to complete or repair a residential structure or appurtenance within residential property lines.”

Respondent bears the burden of proof to establish that the proposed payout from the Fund is incorrect 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.” A preponderance of the evidence is “[t]he greater weight of the evidence, not necessarily established by the greater number of witnesses testifying to a fact but by evidence that has the most convincing force; superior evidentiary weight that, though not sufficient to free the mind wholly from all reasonable doubt, is still sufficient to incline a fair and impartial mind to one side of the issue rather than the other.”

Respondent had ample opportunity to correct the tile work during the corrective work period and failed to do so. Further, the Registrar’s investigator and the Registrar of Contractors found Respondent’s work to not be performed in a workmanlike manner.

Respondent also failed to present any persuasive evidence as to why the bids were not acceptable and likewise, failed to present any competing third-party bids for review. In addition, the fact that Respondent did not receive the payments made on the project from his father and/or sister would be a separate legal action, and one that does not effect the matter at hand.

After reviewing all the evidence, the tribunal concludes that Respondent failed to meet its burden to demonstrate that the award provided by the Fund did not accurately reflect Complainant’s cost to repair the project due to Respondent’s poor work and failure to initially correct the same. Accordingly, Complainant is entitled to a payment from the Fund in the amount of $23,577.00.

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Based on the foregoing, it is recommended that on the effective date of the Registrar’s final order, Complainant receive a payout from the Residential Contractors’ Recovery Fund in the amount of $23,577.00.

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.

-54864001

001

-137160-45720000Done this day, April 29, 2026.

/s/ Adam D. Stone

Administrative Law Judge

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

Tom Cole, Director

Registrar of Contractors

Variety C.R Floor Covering LLC

[email redacted]

Francisco Sandoval

[email redacted]

Mona Baskin Esq.

Office of the Attorney General

[email redacted]

By: OAH Staff