ALJDEC - Licensing
2024A-07082-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2025-06-17
IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
Arizona Signature Motorsports ,
COMPLAINANT
v.
SIGNTASTIC, L.L.C.
License No. ROC 339328,
RESPONDENT
No. 2024A-07082-CHC-ROC
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION
HEARING: June 12, 2025.
APPEARANCES:
For Complainant: Cindy Aguilar.
For Respondent: Michael Frawley.
For the Registrar of Contractors: Steven Avila.
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.
_____________________________________________________________________
FINDINGS OF FACT
Signtastic, LLC, (Respondent) was the holder of License No. 339328, issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (Registrar) on July 12, 2022.
On or about April 8, 2024, Arizona Signature Motorsports (Complainant) entered into a contract with Respondent for, among other things, four monument signs.
On or about June 21, 2024, Complainant filed a Licensed Complaint Form with the Registrar.
The Registrar assigned the complaint to Investigator Steven Avila. After several requests to reschedule, Investigator Avila conducted the jobsite inspection on August 13, 2024, and both parties were present.
On September 5, 2024, Investigator Avila issued a Written Directive From the Registrar to Respondent with a compliance deadline of September 20, 2024.
At the request of Complainant, Investigator Avila granted an extension, allowing the parties to work together toward potential resolution. The parties did not resolve the issue.
The compliance inspection was conducted on March 21, 2025. During the inspection, Investigator Avila observed that some work had been done, but Compliance Items 1, 2, and 3 were deemed not completed.
On April 3, 2025, the Registrar issued a Citation against Respondent, finding cause to charge Respondent with violations of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3), specifically R4-9-108(A), and A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22).
On or about April 18, 2025, Respondent submitted an Answer to the Citation.
Investigator Avila testified in support of his investigation and findings.
At the hearing, Respondent disagreed with the investigator’s findings. Its witness testified that it performed corrective work, argued that Complainant hired a painter, and argued that the standard of work to which Respondent’s performance was being compared was incorrect. Respondent argued that a sign meant to be viewed from 20 feet away should not be scrutinized up close like a piece of art.
Complainant’s witness testified that Complainant had not hired any painters, and she would have known if Complainant had hired a painter. Complainant agreed with Investigator Avila’s findings.
Administrative notice was taken of Respondent’s prior License record on June 13, 2025. According to that record, Respondent’s License No. 339328 had only one open complaint.
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.”
Neglect, modification, or abnormal use of the contractor’s work are affirmative defenses to allegations that the contractor failed to “perform work in a professional and workmanlike manner or in accordance with any applicable building codes and professional industry standards.” To establish the defense, a contractor must demonstrate that the neglect, modification, or abnormal use could have been material to creating the alleged deficiency of workmanship or industry standards or materially impact the work or cost required to correct the deficiency. Subsequent work that has a de minimis impact on the issues alleged is not sufficient to establish the affirmative defense.
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). Contractors are expected to perform work professionally and in accordance with industry standards: obvious flaws are generally unacceptable. Respondent’s arguments about the quality of its work and the standard by which it should be evaluated were not compelling.
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).
Respondent implied a defense of modification when arguing that Complainant hired painters, but Respondent failed to meet its burden to show that its work was modified by a preponderance of the evidence.
“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 two days Respondent’s License No. 339328.
It is further recommended that the Registrar require Respondent to pay the sum of $100.00 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, June 17, 2025.
/s/ Samuel Fox
Administrative Law Judge
Transmitted by either mail, e-mail, or facsimile to:
Tom Cole, Director
Registrar of Contractors
Steven Avila
[email redacted]
SIGNTASTIC, L.L.C.
[email redacted]
Arizona Signature Motorsports
[email redacted]
By: OAH Staff