ALJDEC - Licensing
2024A-09098-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2025-08-21
IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
Mariah Rodriguez,
COMPLAINANT,
v.
Edge Restoration LLC
DBA: Streamline Builders,
License No. ROC 332597,
RESPONDENT.
No. 2024A-09098-CHC-ROC
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION
HEARING: June 17, 2025 at 1:00pm and August 1, 2025 at 9:00am
APPEARANCES: Complainant Mariah Rodriguez on her own behalf. Attorney Ryan Sandstrom on behalf of Respondent Edge Restoration LLC with witness Adam Akers. Investigator Gregory Johndrow 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”). Complainant Exhibits. Respondent Exhibit A
FINDINGS OF FACT
Edge Restoration, LLC, DBA: Streamline Builders (“Respondent”) is the holder of License No. ROC 332597 first issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (“Registrar”) on March 12, 2021. Respondent company performs restorations, reconstructions, and was acting under a KB-2 Dual Residential and Small Commercial license.
In March 2023, Mariah Rodriguez’s (“Complainant”) residential home located in Tucson, Arizona, experienced a water slab leak. Complainant worked with her homeowner’s insurance for restoration and repair. Respondent performed the mitigation and used multiple subcontractors to perform the reconstruction work.
On or about March 22, 2023, Complainant entered into a contract (Itemized Estimate and Work Authorization) with Respondent for, among other things, the necessary work that stemmed from the water slab leak. The contract did not include the estimated date of completion, progress payments, nor information pertaining to the Registrar.
On or about September 21, 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 Gregory Johndrow. On December 5, 2024, Investigator Johndrow set up a jobsite inspection where both parties were present.
On December 16, 2024, Investigator Johndrow issued a Written Directive to Respondent with a deadline date of January 15, 2025.
On January 15, 2025, Investigator Johndrow issued an Amended Written Directive that allowed for an extension and 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 Friday, February 14, 2025.
. . . .
DIRECTIVE REQUIREMENTS
You are directed to remedy the following violations by the appropriate means:
Complaint Item 2: “Spare back room: Baseboard and tile floor do not meet”
Investigator’s Observations: Verified. The flooring has visible gaps along the threshold of both doors and the baseboards have not been installed flat against flooring.
. . . .
Complaint Item 3: “Spare back room: Paint lifting on the north wall”
Investigator’s Observations: Verified. The paint is peeled and lifted above the baseboard on the north wall.
. . . .
Complaint Item 4: “Spare back room: Outlets wiggling”
Investigator’s Observations: Verified. The electrical outlet on the south wall is loose.
. . . .
Complaint Item 6: “Kitchen: The vent needs replacing”
Investigator’s Observations: Verified. The supply register has been modified on the right side. It has damaged louvers and an unsightly appearance.
. . . .
Complaint Item 7: “Kitchen: Shelving rough and needs sanding”
Investigator’s Observations: Verified. The shelving has a rough finish that does not match the finish of the surrounding cabinetry.
. . . .
Complaint Item 8: “Kitchen: Tile gap between wall and tile.”
Investigator’s Observations: Verified. A visible gap is present between the flooring and the baseboard on the west wall.
. . . .
Complaint Item 9: “Kitchen: The baseboard does not meet with the floor”
Investigator’s Observations: Verified. Duplicate of complaint item 8.
. . . .
Complaint Item 10: “Kitchen: Repaint sanded items”
Investigator’s Observations: Verified. The item refers to the issues described in complaint item 7.
. . . .
Complaint Item 12: “Kitchen: Repaint between ceiling and wall at the top.”
Investigator’s Observations: Verified. The paint has inadequate coverage at the ceiling and the top of the wall.
. . . .
Complaint Item 13: “Kitchen: The door of the bottom right-hand cabinet does not close smoothly.”
Investigator’s Observations: Verified. The cabinet door is out of adjustment and rubs against the drawer front above.
. . . .
Complaint Item 15: “Kitchen: The entrance tile between kitchen and dining is not smooth.”
Investigator’s Observations: Verified. The flooring has damage where the two sections interlock, leaving a ridge at the joint.
. . . .
Complaint Item 17: “Kitchen: Sink faucet broken”
Investigator’s Observations: Verified. The pullout section of the faucet does not retract back as it is intended.
. . . .
Complaint Item 18: “Bathroom: Faucets and tub needed repair”
Investigator’s Observations: Verified. The hot side valve for the tub does not operate correctly, when compared to the cold side.
. . . .
Complaint Item 19: “Bathroom: Paint Questionable”
Investigator’s Observations: Verified. The paint has inadequate coverage throughout.
. . . .
Complaint Item 21: “Bathroom: Missing toilet paper holder”
Investigator’s Observations: Verified. The toilet paper holder is missing.
. . . .
Complaint Item 22: “Bathroom: Missing towel holder”
Investigator’s Observations: Verified. The towel bar is missing.
. . . .
Complaint Item 23: “Bathroom: Tub Tile Quality Questionable”
Investigator’s Observations: Verified. The tile surround has lippage in multiple areas which exceeds the allowable tolerance. The tile of the surround has been installed uneven, leaving an uneven width of the grout joints. The tile has chips along the cut edges. The trim used to border the tile on the tops and sides, has not been installed to meet industry standards.
. . . .
Complaint Item 24: “Bathroom: Tub Drain not working properly”
Investigator’s Observations: Verified. The tub drain does not have the proper stop installed.
. . . .
Complaint Item 25: “Bathroom: Anchoring of shelving unit”
Investigator’s Observations: Verified. The shelving unit has not been properly attached.
. . . .
Complaint Item 26: “Bathroom: Sink cabinet does not close smoothly.”
Investigator’s Observations: Verified. The door is out of adjustment and rubs against the bottom right corner.
. . . .
Complaint Item 27: “Bathroom: Bottom storage cabinet does not close properly”
Investigator’s Observations: Verified. The door does not close tight against the cabinetry.
. . . .
Complaint Item 28: “Bathroom: Gapping between storage cabinet and tile.”
Investigator’s Observations: Verified. A visible gap is present between the storage cabinet and the flooring.
. . . .
Complaint Item 32: “Sm Dining Room: Gapping between baseboard and tile”
Investigator’s Observations: Verified. A visible gap is present on the west wall between the baseboard and the flooring.
. . . .
Complaint Item 34: “Lg Bedroom: Door doesn't close properly”
Investigator’s Observations: Verified. The door rubs on the top right of the strike side, the upper hinge is loose.
. . . .
Complaint Item 35: “Lg Bedroom: Gaps between baseboard and tile”
Investigator’s Observations: Verified. A section of the flooring is missing behind the door and several areas of the baseboard have not been installed flat against flooring.
. . . .
Complaint Item 36: “Lg Bedroom: Paint Questionable”
Investigator’s Observations: Verified. Inadequate paint coverage was observed throughout.
. . . .
Complaint Item 38: “Sm Bedroom: Wiggly Outlets”
Investigator’s Observations: Verified. The electrical outlet on the south was is loose.
. . . .
Complaint Item 39: “Sm Bedroom: Holes from Blinds on wall”
Investigator’s Observations: Verified. The holes in the wall next to the blinds were not repaired.
. . . .
Complaint Item 42: “Sm Bedroom: Fan loose and noisy; contractor broke and replaced”
Investigator’s Observations: Verified. The fan does not appear to be mounted solid to the junction box and is loose/out of balance as a result.
. . . .
Complaint Item 45: “Living Room: Blinds do not react; contractor promised replacement.”
Investigator’s Observations: Verified. The southeast blind does not operate correctly.
. . . .
Complaint Item 46: “Living Room: Outlet painted over”
Investigator’s Observations: Verified. The outlet and cover plate on the west wall were painted over.
. . . .
Complaint Item 47: “Living Room: Gaps between tile and baseboard”
Investigator’s Observations: Verified. Several areas of the baseboard have not been installed flat against flooring. A visible gap is present at the threshold of the front entry door.
. . . .
Complaint Item 48: “Living Room: Paint Questionable”
Investigator’s Observations: Verified. Inadequate coverage was observed throughout.
. . . .
Complaint Item 49: “Hall: Door and frame damaged”
Investigator’s Observations: Verified. Paint is peeling on the linen closet door. The base of the door jamb to the bathroom has damaged.
. . . .
Complaint Item 51: “Hall: Paint questionable”
Investigator’s Observations: Verified. Inadequate paint coverage throughout.
. . . .
Complaint Item 53: “Hall: Gaps between baseboard and tile”
Investigator’s Observations: Verified. Several areas of the baseboard have not been installed flat against flooring.
. . . .
Complaint Item 54: “Carport: Paint cleanup on cement”
Investigator’s Observations: Verified. Paint stains are present on the carport slab.
. . . .
Addendum Complaint Item 1: Sm Bedroom: Access panel to the tub not painted.
Investigator’s Observations: Verified. The access panel has not been painted.
. . . .
Following the issuance of the Written Directive, after the deadline in the directive expired, Investigator Johndrow was notified that no corrective work had been performed. As such, a compliance inspection through the Registrar was not conducted.
On March 6, 2025, the Registrar issued a Citation against Respondent, charging possible violations of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely Ariz. Admin. Code R4-9-108(A); Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(12) - ARIZ. Rev. Stat. § 32-1158; and Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(22).
Hearing Evidence
Complainant testified that she worked with Respondent to correct her concerns regarding workmanship and only filed the Complaint over one year later when she did not see results. During the Written Directive period, Complainant testified that she never prevented Respondent access to the property.
Adam Akers, Respondent owner, testified on behalf of his business. Mr. Akers testified that around November 2023, Respondent received a punch list and was ready to close out the project based on the walkthrough. However, the project was not officially closed out. Mr. Akers admitted that he had to hire multiple subcontractors to perform the reconstruction work due to subpar performance in some areas and the Complainant asked that one of the subcontractors be taken off the job due to her concerns.
Mr. Akers further testified that $27,720.08 was the total amount approved for this job. Mr. Akers stated that there was an outstanding balance of $14,630.16 and that Respondent needed to be paid, in order to, remedy further complaint items.
Investigator Johndrow testified that regardless of any outstanding balance that the corrective work needed to be performed per the Written Directive. Investigator Johndrow reiterated the importance of progress payments listed in a contract which were not included in Respondent’s contract/estimate. Investigator Johndrow testified that there was no denial of access claim made by Respondent nor did they request an additional extension.
Mr. Akers admitted that no corrective work was performed during the Written Directive period and that only materials were picked out.
Administrative notice is taken of Respondent’s prior License record on August 1, 2025. Such prior License record reflects that Respondent’s License No. ROC 332597 was Active and there was no discipline against Respondent’s 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.”
In this case, there were approximately 38 outstanding complaint items that needed to be remedied by Respondent per the Written Directive. The subcontractor situation was extremely unfortunate, however, ultimately Respondent was responsible for their work. As such, the evidence established that Respondent’s work was not in conformity with the Registrar’s standards. Therefore, Complainant established 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).
In regards to the contract which was charge two in the Citation, the evidence established that Respondent’s contract failed to include the required elements of a contract set forth in Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1158(A). Therefore, Complainant established that Respondent failed to comply with the Registrar’s statute in violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(12).
Lastly, Mr. Akers admitted and the evidence was uncontroverted and established that Respondent did not attempt to complete the corrective work following the Directive being issued. Therefore, Complainant established that Respondent failed to take appropriate corrective action following a written directive from the Registrar in 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, the Registrar shall suspend Respondent’s License No. ROC 332597 for a period of three days.
It is further recommended that the Registrar require Respondent to pay the sum of $500.00 as a civil penalty pursuant to Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(E).
It is further recommended that if Respondent fails to pay the entire amount of the civil penalty on or before thirty days following the effective date of the Registrar’s final order, the Registrar revoke Respondent’s license, effective on such deadline date. No future license shall be issued to any entity consisting of persons associated with Respondent, as defined in Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1101(A)(5), unless Respondent tenders payment of any outstanding prior civil penalty.
It is further recommended that, on or before thirty (30) days after the effective date of the final order, Respondent shall provide a sample contract to the Registrar to demonstrate that it has amended its contracts to include the nine terms required by Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1158(A). If Respondent fails to establish to the Registrar that it has brought its contracts into compliance with Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1158(A) within thirty days, its contractor’s license shall be suspended until it demonstrates that it has done so.
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 21, 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]
Gregory Johndrow
[email redacted]
Ryan P. Sandstrom
Sandstrom Law Group, PLLC
3654 N. Power Rd., Ste. 167
Mesa, AZ 85215
[email redacted]
Mariah Rodriguez
1231 N Beverly Ave
Tucson, AZ 85712
[email redacted]
By: OAH Staff