ALJDEC - Licensing
2024A-09851-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2025-06-27
IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
Cristina Robles,
COMPLAINANT,
v.
JM Pro Builders LLC,
License No. ROC 338383,
RESPONDENT.
No. 2024A-09851-CHC-ROC
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION
HEARING: June 23, 2025.
APPEARANCES:
For Complainant: Christina Robles.
For Respondent: Juan Medina.
For the Registrar of Contractors: Ruben Perez Sr.
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
JM Pro Builders LLC (Respondent) was the holder of License No. 338383 issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (Registrar) on May 24, 2022.
On or about February 1, 2023, Christina Robles (Complainant) entered into a contract with Respondent for, among other things, removing and replacing the floor at Bien Estar Child Development Center.
On or about August 27, 2024, Complainant filed a Licensed Complaint Form with the Registrar.
The Registrar assigned the complaint to Investigator Ruben Perez, who conducted an appropriately noticed Jobsite Inspection on October 9, 2023.
Investigator Perez issued a Written Directive From the Registrar to Respondent on October 15, 2024, which required Respondent to correct the identified Directive items by November 1, 2024. Respondent was granted an extension to November 15, 2024, and Investigator Perez conducted a compliance inspection on November 20, 2024, concluding that none of the Directive items had been corrected.
On November 22, 2024, the Registrar issued a Citation against Respondent, finding cause to charge Respondent with violations of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3), specifically A.A.C. R4-9-108(A); A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(12), specifically A.R.S. § 32-1158; and A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22).
On December 4, 2024, Respondent submitted an Answer to the Citation.
The Registrar referred the matter to the Office of Administrative Hearings, an independent state agency, for an evidentiary hearing.
Investigator Perez testified in support of his investigation. He testified that the flooring was uneven, exceeding the manufacturer’s instructions. He testified to the cause of that defect: Respondent removed some, but not all, of the prior flooring, and it lay the new flooring on both prior flooring and bare concrete. The height difference between the prior flooring and the concrete caused excessive unevenness in the places where the new flooring overlapped both. He testified that adding a wall would not have caused the unevenness in the flooring.
Complainant testified in support of Investigator Perez’s investigation.
Respondent testified that he was only allowed to fix the work on nights and weekends, when he was unable to get a crew; notably, Respondent testified that he did the original work on nights and weekends. He testified the work was modified because Complainant built a wall, and he believed that problems with the floor started after the wall was installed. He testified that he disclaimed responsibility in a letter to Complainant.
Administrative notice was taken of Respondent’s prior License record on June 23, 2025. According to that record, Respondent’s License No. 338383 was active and only had two open complaints.
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.”
During the Directive period, Complainants cannot refuse access to a contractor and seek discipline against that contractor. Refusing access impinges on the contractor’s right to defend itself by correcting its work within the Registrar of Contractors process. However, Complainants are not required to give a contractor free reign of the property: they may set reasonable limits on access, while providing the contractor sufficient time and access to correct the issues by appropriate means.
A child care center can restrict corrective work to times when children would not be present. Additionally, setting the same restrictions on the corrective work as the contractor agreed to for the original work is not an unreasonable restriction.
The preponderance of the evidence failed to establish a denial of access. The limited hours that Complainant imposed on Respondent was not a denial of access. The restrictions were reasonable, and Respondent had previously agreed to those restrictions.
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 impacted 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 failed to establish modification in this matter. Complainant did add a wall, but the preponderance of the evidence did not support that adding the wall impacted the unevenness of the floor or materially changed the scope or cost of complying with the Directive.
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).
The preponderance of the evidence established that Respondent failed to comply with this chapter in violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(12), namely the contract requirements in A.R.S. § 32-1158.
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 two days Respondent’s License No. 338383.
It is further recommended that the Registrar require Respondent to pay the sum of $200.00 as a civil penalty pursuant to A.R.S. § 32-1154(E).
It is further recommended that within thirty days of the effective date of the Order Respondent shall provide an amended contract to the Registrar which establishes compliance with the requirements in A.R.S. § 32-1158. If Respondent fails to comply, Respondent’s license shall be suspended until it provides a compliant contract.
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 27, 2025.
/s/ Samuel Fox
Administrative Law Judge
Transmitted by either mail, e-mail, or facsimile to:
Tom Cole, Director
Registrar of Contractors
Ruben Perez Sr.
[email redacted]
JM Pro Builders LLC
[email redacted]
Cristina Robles
[email redacted]
By: OAH Staff