ALJDEC - Licensing

2024A-08580-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2025-08-08

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

Lori Denise McCallister,

COMPLAINANT,

Superstition Contracting Inc.

License No. ROC 316923,

RESPONDENT.

No. 2024A-08580-CHC-ROC

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION

HEARING: April 21, 2025 at 9:00am and July 2, 2025 at 9:30am

APPEARANCES: Attorney Lawrence Felder on behalf of Complainant Lori Denise McCallister with witness Michael McCallister. Attorney Paul Frame on behalf of Respondent Superstition Contracting, Incorporated with witness Dennis Frazer. Investigator Chris Allison on behalf of the Arizona Registrar of Contractors.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Nicole Robinson

EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: Arizona Registrar of Contractors Notice of Hearing Packet (“Packet”). Respondent Exhibits.

FINDINGS OF FACT

Superstition Contracting, Incorporated (“Respondent”) is the holder of License No. ROC 316923 issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (“Registrar”).

Lori McCallister (“Complainant”) resides at 1001 North McLane Road located in Payson, Arizona where she lives with her husband, Michael McCallister and their son, David McCallister (“David”). The Payson property is owned by Richard H. Lambie, Trustee of the Surviving Spouse Trust created under the Heintz Family Trust and prior to that the Heintz Credit Shelter Trust.

The McCallisters researched metal sheds for their backyard and they settled on a 40’ x 30’ x 15’ prefabricated steel metal building kit (“prefab kit” or “storage shed”) manufactured by the General Steel, Corporation (“General Steel”).

On or about January 2023, the prefab kit was purchased by Mr. Lambie through the Trust. Mr. McCallister and David took delivery of the prefab kit, used a forklift to load all of the pieces into their backyard over a 12’ x 16’ porch area. The unloading process took approximately three hours. General Steel provided storage instructions and erection blueprints with the prefab kit.

The McCallisters could not find a contractor to erect the prefab kit. General Steel reached out to Respondent and informed Dennis Frazer, Respondent Qualifying Party, about the McCallisters’ predicament. General Steel had an established relationship with Respondent, which had erected a number of its prefab kits.

On or about April 24, 2023, Complainant entered into a contract with Respondent for, among other things, the erection of the prefab kit. The total amount of the contract for the erection of the structure was $48,030.00, less any change orders.

Throughout the rest of 2023, the garage plans and design, permit application, installation of the concrete slab, and addition of electrical took place.

On August 16, 2023, the Town of Payson issued the building permit.

A September 10, 2023 change order, signed by Mr. Lambie stated in part, “[o]wner has purchased outside of contractor and will be responsible for missing, damaged and fabrication of 40x30 metal building.”

On or about September 18, 2023, all of the contract documents were re-signed by Mr. Lambie. The McCallisters intended to have the structure built in their yard as a detached structure. The McCallisters were going to primarily use the building as a storage shed and to periodically work on vehicles. They did not intend to use the structure as a garage and did not want a driveway leading to the structure.

In 2024, work continued on the structure until about the beginning of April 2024. Respondent notified Complainant that work was complete and, per the contract, it expected a punch list. Respondent did not receive a punch list from Complainant.

On April 11, 2024, Complainant hired Mountain High Home Improvements (“Mountain High”), a third-party contractor, to perform an inspection of the erected storage shed. Complainant provided Mountain High’s results to Investigator Allison.

In May 2024, Inspector Hicks with the Town of Payson issued a Certificate of Completion (“COC”) for the storage shed.

In late May 2024, the Town of Payson revoked the COC because the floor was not sloped.

On or about July 29, 2024, the Registrar received a Complaint against Respondent from Complainant alleging poor work with respect to the project.

The Registrar assigned the complaint to Investigator Chris Allison. On August 30, 2024, a jobsite inspection took place with both parties present. After the jobsite inspection, Investigator Allison issued a Written Directive to Respondent that provided as follows:

After investigation, the Registrar determined that you failed to meet the requirements of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A), and now issues this Directive requiring you to take appropriate corrective action. Failure to comply with this Directive constitutes a violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22) and may result in the issuance of a citation, discipline of your license, and a civil penalty pursuant to A.R.S. § 32-1154(E) of up to $500.00. You must notify the Registrar’s assigned Investigator of your compliance with this Directive prior to 5:00 p.m. on Thursday, October 31, 2024.

. . . .

NOTE: THE REGISTRAR CANNOT DIRECT THE RESPONDENT TO COMPETE/CORRECT ITEMS THAT WERE NOT IN THE ORIGINAL SCOPE OF WORK OUTLINED IN THE CONTRACT. THEREFORE, ANY BUILDING MATERIALS THAT NEED TO BE REPLACED IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE COMPLAINANT TO PROVIDE. IF THE COMPLAINANTS CHOOSE TO PRUSUE REIMBURSMENT FOR THE MATERIALS THEY WOULD NEED TO SUBMIT A CLAIM TO THE APPROPRIATE VENUE.

DIRECTIVE REQUIREMENTS

You are directed to remedy the following violations by the appropriate means:

Complaint Item: 1 – Concrete floor is required to be sloped

Investigator’s Observation: In email sent on 6/26/2024 to Superstition Contracting by Ray Lehaye; Payson Building Office. The C of C has been revoked due to items on the approved plans not being completed. One of the items is sloping of the concrete floor.

"Concrete Floor is required to be sloped, as noted on the approved plans."

Respondent shall correct in an appropriate manner.

. . . .

Complaint Item: 4 – Garage door seal has not been installed on east side garage door.

Investigator’s Observation: Respondent shall correct in an appropriate manner.

. . . .

Complaint Item: 5 – two 220 electrical outlets were added, not reflected on plans.

Investigator’s Observation: Respondent added electrical not on approved plans.

Respondent shall correct in an appropriate manner.

. . . .

Complaint Item: 6 – Exterior light fixtures are not secured as required not darks sky compliant.

Investigator’s Observation: Respondent states that the light have 5 setting to make them compliant. However, no documentation on the lights was provided.

In [an] email sent on 6/26 to Superstition Contracting by Ray Lehaye; Payson Building Office. The C of C has been revoked due to items on the approved plans not being completed. One of the items is the lighting "Exterior light fixtures are not secured as required and are not dark sky compliant." The lights were not secured.

Respondent shall correct in an appropriate manner.

. . . .

Compliant Item: 7 – 6 required floor vents that were on approved plans not installed.

Investigator’s Observation: Vents not installed per plans. Complainant/owner to provide material.

Respondent shall correct in an appropriate manner.

. . . .

Complaint Item: 9 – scratches and poor seal at windows

Investigator’s Observation: Several windows have scratching, mark, and/or marring. Respondent is not responsible for replacing material. Original contract states Complainant provided materials. It was also noted that materials were sitting onsite several months prior to beginning construction.

However, by installing the materials without notifying the complainant of the damage the Respondent is assuming the responsibility for the installation. Owner is required to purchase/provide new materials.

Respondent shall install new materials to replace damaged materials.

. . . .

Complaint Item: 10 – Significant scratches on exterior wall panel.

Investigator’s Observation: Several scratches were noted on the metal panel siding. Respondent is not responsible for replacing material. Original contract states Complainant provided materials. It was also noted that materials were sitting onsite several months prior to beginning construction. However, by installing the materials without notifying the complainant of the damage the Respondent is assuming the responsibility for the installation. Owner is required to purchase/provide new materials.

Respondent shall install new materials to replace damaged materials.

. . . .

Complaint Item: 11 – Extreme poor workmanship and dangerous edges around all exterior.

Investigator’s Observation: Several panels were poorly cut and/or installed. Respondent is not responsible for replacing material. Original contract states Complainant provided materials. It was also noted that materials were sitting onsite several months prior to beginning construction. However, by installing the materials without notifying the complainant of the damage the Respondent is assuming the responsibility for the installation. Owner is required to purchase/provide new materials.

Respondent shall install new materials to replace damaged materials.

. . . .

Complaint Item: 12 – Main structural beam bolts are loose and not impacted.

Investigator’s Observation: Bolts are loose. Respondent shall correct in an appropriate manner.

. . . .

Complaint Item: 14 – Garage door opener falling apart.

Investigator’s Observation: Respondent shall correct in an appropriate manner.

. . . .

Complaint Item: 15 – Significant dent to side of door jamb.

Investigator’s Observation: There are dent on the jamb. Respondent is not responsible for replacing material. Original contract states Complainant provided materials. It was also noted that materials were sitting onsite several months prior to beginning construction.

Respondent shall install new materials to replace damaged materials.

. . . .

Complaint Item: 16 – Poor workmanship and cuts on awning corner.

Investigator’s Observation: The cuts and installation of the awning are poor.

Respondent shall correct in an appropriate manner.

. . . .

Complaint Item: 17 – screw protruding through outside of building.

Investigator’s Observation: Respondent shall correct in an appropriate manner.

. . . .

Complaint Item: 21 – missing screws in exterior walls.

Investigator’s Observation: There are holes were screws were.

Respondent shall correct in an appropriate manner.

. . . .

Complaint Item: 22 – Damage beside existing electrical panel.

Investigator’s Observation: There is damage. Respondent is not responsible for replacing material. Original contract states Complainant provided materials. It was also noted that materials were sitting onsite several months prior to beginning construction. However, by installing the materials without notifying the complainant of the damage the Respondent is assuming the responsibility for the installation. Owner is required to purchase/provide new materials.

Respondent shall install new materials to replace damaged materials.

. . . .

Complaint Item: 23 – Damage to side of window frame

Investigator’s Observation: There is damage Respondent is not responsible for replacing material. Original contract states Complainant provided materials. It was also noted that materials were sitting onsite several months prior to beginning construction. However, by installing the materials without notifying the complainant of the damage the Respondent is assuming the responsibility for the installation. Owner is required to purchase/provide new materials.

Respondent shall install new materials to replace damaged materials.

. . . .

Complaint Item: 24 – Damage and poor caulking at window.

Investigator’s Observation: There is damage poor caulking. Respondent is not responsible for replacing material. Original contract states Complainant provided materials. It was also noted that materials were sitting onsite several months prior to beginning construction. However, by installing the materials without notifying the complainant of the damage the Respondent is assuming the responsibility for the installation. Owner is required to purchase/provide new materials. Respondent shall install new materials to replace damaged materials. Respondent shall correct caulking.

. . . .

Complaint Item: 25 – significant dent in corner trim

Respondent shall install new materials to replace damaged materials.

. . . .

Complaint Item: 26 – Clearly shows missing fasteners.

Investigator’s Observation: There are several area that have missing fasteners and daylight is visible.

Respondent shall correct in an appropriate manner.

. . . .

Complaint Item: 27 – No caulking or sealant at multiple locations

Investigator’s Observation: There are several areas where sealant is missing and/or excessive sealant was used. There are several areas were sealant had failed.

Respondent shall correct in an appropriate manner.

. . . .

Complaint Item: 33 – Water infiltration

Investigator’s Observation: There was evidence and documentation provided that water is entering the structure.

Respondent shall correct in an appropriate manner.

. . . .

Complaint Item: 34 – Loose straps on downspout

Investigator’s Observation: Respondent shall correct in an appropriate manner.

. . . .

Complaint Item: 35 – Bat cut, bad seal, protective coating not peeled off

Investigator’s Observation: Respondent shall correct in an appropriate manner.

. . . .

Complaint Item: 36 – Gutter bent and low in center, will not flow properly.

Investigator’s Observation: Respondent shall correct in an appropriate manner.

. . . .

Complaint Item: 37 – Side of overhead door not finished, Exposed insulation

Investigator’s Observation: Respondent shall correct in an appropriate manner.

. . . .

Complaint Item: 38 – damage to door panel

Investigator’s Observation: There was damage to the roll up door panel. Respondent is not responsible for replacing material. Original contract states Complainant provided materials. It was also noted that materials were sitting onsite several months prior to beginning construction. However, by installing the materials without notifying the complainant of the damage the Respondent is assuming the responsibility for the installation. Owner is required to purchase/provide new materials.

Respondent shall install new materials to replace damaged materials.

. . . .

Complaint Item: 40 – Bent and kinked purlin

Investigator’s Observation: The purlin is bent and kinked. Respondent is not responsible for replacing material. Original contract states Complainant provided materials. It was also noted that materials were sitting onsite several months prior to beginning construction.

Respondent shall install new materials to replace damaged materials.

. . . .

Complaint Item: 41 – Twisted purlin

Investigator’s Observation: Purlin is twisted. Respondent is not responsible for replacing material. Original contract states Complainant provided materials. It was also noted that materials were sitting onsite several months prior to beginning construction. However, by installing the materials without notifying the complainant of the damage the Respondent is assuming the responsibility for the installation. Owner is required to purchase/provide new materials.

Respondent shall install new materials to replace damaged materials.

. . . .

Complaint Item: 42 – Bowed purlin

Investigator’s Observation: Purlin is bowed. Respondent is not responsible for replacing material. Original contract states Complainant provided materials. It was also noted that materials were sitting onsite several months prior to beginning construction.

Respondent shall install new materials to replace damaged materials.

. . . .

Complaint Item: 43 – damage to lip of purlin

Respondent shall install new materials to replace damaged materials.

. . . .

Complaint Item: 45 – daylight at man door

Investigator’s Observation: Respondent shall correct in an appropriate item.

. . . .

Complaint Item: 46 – Daylight coming through in multiple areas

Investigator’s Observation: This item was extrapolated from complainant addendums due to several similar items listed. There are multiple areas that should be seals that aren't. You can see daylight coming through. Respondent shall correct in an appropriate manner.

. . . .

Complaint Item: 47 – Poor, missing and/or excessive caulking/sealing.

Investigator’s Observation: This item was extrapolated from complainant addendums due to several similar items listed. There are several areas were caulk/sealant is done poorly. There are several areas where caulk/sealant is missing. There are several areas where caulk/sealant is excessively applied.

Respondent shall correct in an appropriate manner.

Following the issuance of the Written Directive, some corrective work was performed. As such, a Compliance Inspection was performed on November 18, 2025, with both parties present. The relevant Compliance Findings are as follows:

Complaint Item: 1 – Concrete floor is required to be sloped

Compliance Observation: This item was not correct at the time of the compliance inspection.

NOT CORRECTED

. . . .

Complaint Item: 7 – 6 required floor vents that were on approved plans not installed.

Compliance Observation: No corrective work performed.

NOT CORRECTED

Complaint Item: 12 – Main structural beam bolts are loose and not impacted.

Compliance Observation: At the time of the inspection there were several bolts that were loose.

NOT CORRECTED

. . . .

Complaint Item: 27 – No caulking or sealant at multiple locations

Compliance Observation: There were still areas where excessive caulking/sealant was used.

NOT CORRECTED.

. . . .

Complaint Item: 33 – Water infiltration

Compliance Observation: At the time of the inspection there was evidence and documentation provided of water infiltration coming in from by the front man door.

NOT CORRECTED

. . . .

Complaint Item: 35 – Bad cut, bad seal, protective coating not peeled off

Compliance Observation: Protective warp [sic] was not removed.

NOT CORRECTED

. . . .

Complaint Item: 36 – Gutter bent and low in center, will not flow properly.

Compliance Observation: This item was not corrected appropriately. There is still a dip in the gutter.

NOT CORRECTED

On December 5, 2025, the Registrar issued a Citation against Respondent, charging possible violations of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(2)(b); Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely Ariz. Admin. Code R4-9-108(A); and Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(22).

Hearing Evidence

Mr. Frazer testified that he had worked with steel for decades. As a general licensed contractor, Mr. Frazer constructed residential homes, erected buildings, completed tenant improvements, etc. Mr. Frazer testified that Respondent’s business was headquartered in San Tan Valley, Arizona, which was quite a distance from Payson, Arizona. A General Steel contact called Mr. Frazer and told him about the McCallister project and how Complainant could not find anyone to erect the prefab kit. Mr. Frazer testified that he did General Steel a favor by contacting the McCallisters. Respondent contracted with Complainant and then Mr. Lambie in a labor only contract, to erect the prefab kit

For Complaint Item 1, Investigator Allison testified that the “concrete floor is required to be sloped, as noted on the approved plans,” and the lack of a slope was a violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(2)(b) due to the August 23, 2023, approved plans by the Town of Payson. Investigator Allison admitted that if the Town of Payson did not require a slope that he would not have written this up as a complaint item on the Written Directive and the compliance inspection. Investigator Allison testified that he was not aware of the first set of design plans dated June 5, 2023, that did not include a slope or the floor vents which were a part of Complaint Item 7.

Mr. Frazer testified that the structure was permitted as a storage shed through the Town of Payson and the only time a detached, storage shed needed to be sloped would be if one was storing certain chemicals listed in the International Building Code.

Prior to Respondent pouring the concrete slab for the prefab kit, Mr. Frazer went to the Town of Payson because the structural plans contradicted each other. One set of structural drawings had two arrows pointing to the two different shed doors that read “Slope floor to garage doors,” which Mr. Frazer knew was against the code. Mr. Frazer went to the Town of Payson about this drawing and was told to talk to the Inspector. On or about October 23, 2023, Inspector Mike Coldiron told Mr. Frazer that a monolithic pour was proper because a storage shed did not need to be sloped as detailed in the prior, approved structural plans. Mr. Frazer testified that the structural drawings did not have a stem wall or footing, and it was a monolithic pour and not sloped. The pour was approved and Respondent moved forward.

For Complaint Item 7, Investigator Allison testified that, per the Town of Payson’s approved plans, six flood vents were required in the structure.

Mr. Frazer testified that the flood vents were not included in the contract nor were they included in the original, structural plans which had no sloped floor and no vents.

The installation of the flood vents was never contracted for, in the original contract, and not in any change orders which had been meticulously tracked. On Change Order 002 dated September 10, 2023 stated in the Exclusions section “Flood Vents to be handled at later date CO [change order].” Mr. McCallister testified “we would of paid them, the Trust would pay for it,” however, the flood vents were not paid for nor were the materials purchased by Complainant.

For Complaint Item 12, Investigator Allison testified that there were bolts that were loose during the jobsite inspection. Mr. McCallister testified that “nuts and bolts [were] still falling from the ceiling,” and that he “saw no one tamper with the bolts.”

Mr. Frazer testified that the snug tight bolts should be “as tight as one man on the end of a spud wrench,” which is detailed in the General Steel blueprints. Mr. Frazer further testified that these bolts can loosen over time due to the varied temperature fluctuations in Payson. In addition, Mr. Frazer stated that, per the General Steel plans, these bolts required periodic maintenance to retighten any loose bolts but these bolts should not be falling completely from their housings.

For Complaint Item 27, Investigator Allison testified that there were a few areas where excessive caulking/sealant was used.

Mr. Frazer testified that Respondent would apply caulk/sealant in the areas that were designated per General Steel.

For Complaint Item 33, Investigator Allison testified that he was shown video of water infiltration from David. Investigator Allison testified that the man door, the hinged door on the front side of the storage shed, needed to be water tight. Investigator Allison further testified that he never saw or ordered a water test to be performed on the man door.

Mr. Frazer testified to the General Steel blueprints and plans which categorized this prefab kit product as an “enclosed structure” and the only portion meant to be watertight was the roof. In addition, Mr. Frazer provided background on steel buildings which can be subjected to condensation and General Steel provided a mold-resistant insulation, for that purpose.

For Complaint Item 35, Investigator Allison testified that, based on the Registrar’s interpretation, if a contractor erected a structure that came with a protective wrap, the contractor was required to remove the wrap.

Mr. Frazer testified that, when Respondent takes on these types of projects, they do not take delivery of the kit until they are ready to erect, which can take weeks or months based on permits and plans being approved by the municipality. Mr. Frazer testified that, because the McCallisters improperly stored the steel for about four months and left it sitting in the sunlight, the protective wrap was baked into the steel and would be difficult to remove. Mr. Frazer further testified that, per its contract, Respondent did not take responsibility for the state of the materials.

For Complaint Item 36, Investigator Allison testified that there was still a dip in the gutter. Investigator Allison further testified that he did not perform any water testing on this gutter and “[i]t may still flow enough to never be an issue . . . my job is to determine that there was a workmanship issue and the fact that there is this bend or dip in the gutter is a workmanship issue.”

Mr. Frazer testified that he informed Investigator Allison that if Respondent was hired to unload the prefab kit and store the kit per General Steel’s plans that there would not have been any oxidization, scratches, or damage to the metal. Mr. Frazer further testified that the installation of the gutter was per the General Steel plans but the gutters were “big and flimsy” and were damaged due to improper storage prior to erection.

Investigator Allison testified that the contract was for labor only and that the Registrar could not require Respondent to act outside of the scope of that contract. Investigator Allison further testified that Mountain Home’s inspection report was treated as an addendum to the complaint “but their findings didn’t have any weight . . . on my findings.”

Administrative notice is taken of Respondent’s prior License record on July 2, 2025. Such prior License record reflects that Respondent’s License No. ROC 316923 was first issued on November 27, 2017, and is Active. Such License record also reflects no prior complaints or disciplinary action taken against the license.

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. A preponderance of the evidence means “[p]roof which leads the trier of fact to find that the existence of the contested fact is more probable than its nonexistence.”

The evidence failed to establish that Respondent departed from or disregarded an applicable building code in violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(2) (b). Whether a slope was required was not a clear-cut issue and the Town of Payson provided contradictory plans that were not to code. To gain clarity, Mr. Frazer was told by the Town of Payson to ask an inspector. Mr. Frazer not only received clarity from Inspector Coldiron, he received approval to pour a monolithic slab, which Respondent did. Mr. Frazer has vast experience in steel and construction, whereby General Steel reached out to him to help the McCallisters. Having erected numerous prefab kits, Mr. Frazer knew that the August 23, 2023 plans were not to code and building standards. Therefore, Complainant has not met her burden of proof on this matter.

With respect to the flood vents, the evidence failed to establish that Respondent departed from or disregarded the plans or specifications in any material respect that is prejudicial to another without consent of the owner and without the consent of the person entitled to have the particular construction project completed in accordance with such plans, specifications and code in violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(2)(a). Complainant and Respondent did not contract for the installation of flood vents, therefore, Respondent’s failure to install flood vents was not a violation.

In this case, Complaint Items 12 (bolts), 27 (caulking), 33 (water infiltration) were cited for poor workmanship violations, however, Complainant failed to establish that Respondent was not in conformity with the Registrar’s standards. The evidence presented regarding the bolts and the caulking were not concrete nor persuasive. No witness or documentary evidence provided information on how many bolts were allegedly loose and where they were located. In addition, the General Steel instructions provided that some bolts could come loose over time and needed to be checked on a regular basis. Also, the compliance inspection presented one photo where caulk was deemed “excessive,” however, that photo was not compelling and should not constitute poor workmanship. Furthermore, the water infiltration complaint conveyed a lack of due diligence on the part of the Registrar by not conducting its own independent test to determine if any water infiltration was due to Respondent’s construction. Therefore, Complainant failed to establish that Respondent did not complete the project in a workmanlike manner in violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely Ariz. Admin. Code R4-9-108(A).

The storage of the materials, whereby they sat outside in inclement weather for four months, fundamentally changed the aesthetics of the materials. The materials were scratched, dented, protective wrap baked into the steel, and beams not stacked according to General Steel’s instructions overwhelmingly lead to Complaint Items 35 (protective wrap) and 36 (a bent gutter), as no fault of Respondent. Therefore, Complainant failed to establish that Respondent did not complete these items in a workmanlike manner in violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely Ariz. Admin. Code R4-9-108(A).

The evidence established that Respondent completed all of the remaining corrective work following the Directive being issued. Therefore, Complainant failed to establish that Respondent did not take appropriate corrective action following a written directive from the Registrar in violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(22) and because of the reasons specified, discipline is not warranted.

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Based on the foregoing,

It is recommended that on the effective date of the Registrar’s Final Order in this matter, the Registrar close Complainant’s complaint in Case No. 2024-08580 against Respondent’s License No. ROC 316923.

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 8, 2025.

/s/ Nicole Robinson

Administrative Law Judge

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

Tom Cole, Director

Registrar of Contractors

c/o Legal Department

1700 W. Washington Street, Suite 105

Phoenix, AZ 85007

[email redacted]

Lawrence J. Felder, Esq.

Resolvere Law PLLC

3101 N Central Ave Ste. 850

Phoenix, AZ 85012

[email redacted]

Paul K. Frame

FRAME LAW PLLC

3120 W Carefree Hwy, Suite 1

Phoenix, AZ 85086

[email redacted]

Chris Allison

[email redacted]

By: OAH Staff