ALJDEC - Licensing

2024A-10901-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2025-06-11

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

Sharon Darrell,

COMPLAINANT,

v.

Ruiz Affordable Roofing LLC

ROC License No. 326277,

RESPONDENT.

No. 2024A-10901-CHC-ROC

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION

HEARING: June 11, 2025 at 1:00 PM.

APPEARANCES: No appearance(s) by or on behalf of Sharon Darrell (“Complainant”) or Ruiz Affordable Roofing LLC (“Respondent”). John Smith (“Investigator Smith”) appeared on behalf of the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (“Registrar”). Heath Richards observed.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Jenna Clark.

EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: N/A.

On December 31, 2024, the Registrar issued a Notice of Hearing on Contested Case (“Notice”) in the above-captioned matter which set a hearing before the Office of Administrative Hearings (“OAH”), an independent state agency, at 1:00 p.m. on February 04, 2025, to determine whether the Registrar has cause to discipline Respondent’s license based on the following alleged statutory violations:

Charge 1: A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) – A.A.C. R4-9-108(a)

Charge 2: A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(12) – A.R.S. § 32-1158

Charge 3: A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22)

Correspondence was not returned as undeliverable to Complainant.

On January 08, 2025, Complainant submitted a Motion to Continue, which was granted by OAH. As a result, on January 15, 2025, OAH issued a Minute Entry – Granting Continuance which reset the matter for hearing on February 18, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. Correspondence was not returned as undeliverable to Complainant.

On February 18, 2025, at the time scheduled for continued hearing Respondent requested a foreign language interpreter. Because an interpreter was unavailable, the matter was continued sua sponte by the Tribunal in a Minute Entry – Granting Continuance dated February 20, 2025, which reset the matter for hearing on April 15, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. Correspondence was not returned as undeliverable to Complainant.

On April 15, 2025, at the time scheduled for continued hearing, the parties submitted a Motion to Continue because Respondent had performed corrective work unbeknownst to Investigator Smith, and wanted him to perform a Prehearing Jobsite Inspection. The motion was granted by OAH. As a result, on April 16, 2025, OAH issued a Minute Entry – Granting Continuance which reset the matter for hearing on June 11, 2025, at 1:00 p.m. Correspondence was not returned as undeliverable to Complainant.

On May 21, 2025, Investigator Smith submitted his Prehearing Jobsite Notes as a supplemental Registrar exhibit to OAH.

On May 21, 2025, Complainant submitted the following correspondence to OAH:

Regarding docket number 2024A-10901CHC-ROC.Inspector John Smith performed an inspection on 052125 @ 0900 and found all repairs were taken care of appropriately.

Thank you very much.

Sharon Darrell

Complainant did not specifically request for Complaint No. 2024-10901 to be dismissed or vacated.

On June 10, 2025, OAH issued electronic correspondence to Complainant to confirm whether an actual controversy was ripe for adjudication, or if she was desirous of requesting a dismissal. Although correspondence was not returned as undeliverable, Complainant did not reply.

Hearing Evidence

On June 11, 2025, though afforded a ten (10) minute grace period, Complainant failed to appear. As such, the hearing record was not opened.

No correspondence was received on behalf of Complainant to provide notice of unavailability, appear via alternative means, or continue.

No settlement is on file for this matter at OAH.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

This matter lies within the Registrar’s jurisdiction. The matter was properly brought before OAH.

The purpose of the Registrar’s licensing statutes is to protect the public from unscrupulous, unqualified, and financially irresponsible contractors.

The Registrar may resolve contractual disputes if such resolution in ancillary to its regulatory mission and may penalize a contractor’s license by ordering payment of restitution if a proven statutory violation was not remedied by corrective action.

Complainant bears the burden of proof to establish cause for the Registrar to discipline Respondent’s license by a preponderance of the evidence. Respondent bears the burden to establish factors in mitigation of the penalty and affirmative defenses by the same evidentiary standard.

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

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(3) includes among the grounds for suspension, revocation, or other disciplinary action against a contractor’s license, “[v]iolation of any rule adopted by the registrar.”

Ariz. Admin. Code R4-9-108(a) requires that “[a] contractor shall perform all work in a professional and workmanlike manner.”

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(12) includes among the grounds for suspension, revocation, or other disciplinary action against a contractor’s license, “Failure in any material respect to comply with this chapter.”

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1158(A) provides that a contract between a contractor and property owner amounting to more than $1,000.00 must contain the following information in writing:

The name of the contractor and the contractor's business address and license number.

The name and mailing address of the owner and the jobsite address or legal description.

The date the parties entered into the contract.

The estimated date of completion of all work to be performed under the contract.

A description of the work to be performed under the contract.

The total dollar amount to be paid to the contractor by the owner for all work to be performed under the contract, including all applicable taxes.

The dollar amount of any advance deposit paid or scheduled to be paid to the contractor by the owner.

The dollar amount of any progress payment and the stage of construction at which the contractor will be entitled to collect progress payments during the course of construction under the contract.

That the property owner has the right to file a written complaint with the Registrar for an alleged violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat § 32-1154(A). The contract shall contain the Registrar's telephone number, website address, and shall state that complaints must be made within the applicable time period as set forth in Ariz. Rev. Stat § 32-1155(A). The information must be prominently displayed in the contract in at least ten point bold type, and the contract shall be signed by the property owner and the contractor.

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(22) provides, in pertinent part, that “[a] holder of a license may not fail to take appropriate corrective action to comply with this chapter or rules adopted pursuant to this chapter without valid justification within a reasonable period of time after receiving a written directive from the registrar. The written directive shall set forth the time within which the contractor is to complete the remedial action. The time permitted for compliance shall not be less than fifteen days from the date of issuance of the directive. A license shall not be revoked or suspended nor shall any other penalty be imposed for a violation of this paragraph until after a hearing has been held. The Registrar has the authority to issue license discipline under this provision, including summary suspension, revocation, or imposing a civil penalty or recovery fund award.

Ariz. Admin. Code R2-19-117 provides that if a party fails to appear at a hearing, the administrative law judge may vacate the hearing and return the matter to the agency for any further action.

Here, Complainant failed to appear without establishing good cause. As a result, the record was not opened and no evidence was presented or accepted. Therefore, it must be concluded that Complainant defaulted her appearance and failed to sustain her burden of proof in the matter.

Consequently, the underlying complaint is subject to dismissal.

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Based on the foregoing,

IT IS RECOMMENDED that the Director of the Registrar dismiss Complainant’s appeal, without prejudice.

IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the Registrar close Complaint No. 2024-10901.

NOTICE

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 12, 2025.

Office of Administrative Hearings

/s/ Jenna Clark

Administrative Law Judge

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

Tom Cole, Director

c/o Legal Department

Registrar of Contractors

1700 W. Washington St,, Ste. 105

Phoenix, AZ 85007-2812

[email redacted]

[email redacted]

Sharon Darrell, Complainant

2325 W. Sumaya Pl.

Tucson, AZ 85741

[email redacted]

Ruiz Affordable Roofing LLC, Respondent

6707 S. Caballo Rd.

Tucson, AZ 85746

[email redacted]

[email redacted]

By: OAH Staff