ALJDEC - Licensing
2024A-10960-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2025-05-01
IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
Patricia Etcheverry
COMPLAINANT,
v.
Lone Cactus Construction LLC
License No. ROC 332252,
RESPONDENT.
No. 2024A-10960-CHC-ROC
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION
HEARING: January 31, 2025 and April 11, 2025
APPEARANCES: Patricia Etcheverry (hereinafter “Complainant”) appeared on behalf of herself at the hearing on January 31, 2025 and April 11, 2025. Shawn Roanhorse appeared on behalf of Lone Cactus Construction, LLC, (hereinafter “Respondent”), at the hearing on January 3, 2025. No one appeared on behalf of Respondent at the hearing on April 11, 2025.
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Velva Moses-Thompson
ADMITTED EXHIBITS: Exhibit A: The Registrar’s administrative record, 51 pages.
_____________________________________________________________________
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Respondent holds License No. ROC 332252 issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (hereinafter “Registrar” or “ROC”).
2. Shawn Roanhorse is Respondent’s qualifying party.
3. On or about June 13, 2024, Respondent agreed to build a perimeter fence around Complainant’s property for the amount of $8,227.53.
4. Complainant paid Respondent a $4,200.00 deposit for the job.
5. Respondent did not start the job.
6. Complainant filed a complaint with the Registrar alleging abandonment on the part of Respondent.
7. The Registrar assigned the complaint to one of its investigators, Daniel Otero (hereinafter “Investigator Otero”).
8. On October 16, 2024, Investigator Otero conducted a job-site inspection. Investigator Otero observed that blue stake was completed around the property showing the anticipation of construction work. However, Investigator Otero observed that no work had begun on the project.
9. On October 28, 2024, the Registrar issued a Directive to Respondent that provided, in relevant part, as follows:
.........................................................
Dear Respondent:
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, November 15, 2024.
You are directed to remedy the following violations by the appropriate means:
Complaint Item: - Contractor has not scheduled, started or given any
reason for not starting project.
Investigator’s Observation: Verified. At the time of the Inspection it was
observed and demonstrated, there were areas around the property where Blue
stake was done multiple times anticipating the arrival of the respondent to
fulfill their contract. The Respondent will need to correct this by the appropriate means.
Workmanship Rule: ARS §32-1154 (A)(1) Abandonment
of a contract or refusal to perform after submitting a bid on work without legal
excuse for the abandonment or refusal.
Governing Rule: Abandonment of a contract or refusal to perform after
submitting a bid on work without legal excuse for the abandonment or refusal.
A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(1)
.........................................................
10. Respondent failed to comply with the Directive.
11. On November 19, 2024, the Registrar issued a Citation to Respondent. Through the Citation, the Registrar notified Respondent that it found cause to charge Respondent with violating Arizona Revised Statutes, (hereinafter “A.R.S.”), 32-1154(A)(1), (3), (22) and Arizona Administrative Code (hereinafter “A.A.C.”) R4-9-108(A).
12. Respondent filed an answer to the Citation. Respondent alleged that it sent Complainant a cashier’s check in the mail in October 2024 but Complainant had not received or cashed the check.
13. The matter was referred to the Office of Administrative Hearings for an evidentiary hearing.
14. A hearing convened on January 31, 2025. Complainant and
Mr. Roanhorse were present at the hearing on January 31, 2025. At the hearing,
Mr. Roanhorse stated that he would return Complainant’s deposit. The parties agreed to set the matter for a status update by February 19, 2025, to allow Respondent to return the deposit to Complainant.
15. On February 20, 2025, Complainant notified the tribunal that she had not received payment from Respondent.
16. The matter was reset for hearing on April 11, 2025.
17. On February 21, 2025, the Office of Administrate Hearings issued a notice of hearing to Complainant and Respondent at their e-mail and business addresses of record. The Notice informed the parties that a hearing would be reset for April 11, 2025 at 9:00 a.m. through Google Meet.
18. A hearing was held on April 11, 2025.
19. No one appeared on behalf of Respondent at the hearing on April 11, 2025. No one filed a request to appear telephonically on behalf of Respondent. Although the hearing did not start until approximately 9:15 a.m., no one appeared on behalf of Respondent through an authorized member, officer, employee, or attorney, or contact the Office of Administrative Hearings to request that the start of the hearing be further delayed. Consequently, Respondent did not present any evidence to defend its license.
20. Complainant testified on behalf of herself at the hearing on April 11, 2025. Complainant explained that although she paid Respondent a deposit, Respondent never performed construction and did not return her deposit. Complainant requested that Respondent’s license be revoked.
21. Investigator Otero testified at the hearing on April 11, 2025. Investigator Otero explained that throughout the complaint process, Mr. Roanhorse continuously told him that he would pay Complainant. However, Mr. Roarnhorse never paid complainant. Investigator Otero testified that his job-site inspection notes that are in the Registrar’s administrative record provides an accurate reflection of his investigation of the complaint.
22. Administrative notice is taken of the Registrar’s public website. According to the information available on the website May 1, 2025, Respondent’s license was first issued on February 12, 2021, and is suspended. Such prior License record also shows that there is only one open complaint against Respondent. Such prior License record further shows that three complaints were closed against Respondent that were resolved or settled by Respondent, or withdrawn by the complainant after the issuance of a corrective work order for formal citation.
23. Respondent’s license has never been disciplined. The lack of prior discipline taken is considered an aggravating factor mitigating factor in imposing discipline.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Registrar has jurisdiction over this matter, pursuant to A.R.S. § 32-1101, et seq., which authorizes the Registrar to impose disciplinary sanctions against licenses for violations of A.R.S. § 32-1154.
The suspended status of Respondent’s license does not deprive Complainant of
her right to prosecute the complaint or prevent the Registrar from determining the merits of Complainant’s complaint. This matter lies within the Registrar’s jurisdiction.
To warrant such sanctions by the Registrar, Complainant must demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated the statutory section cited. Proof by a “preponderance” means that “the evidence is sufficient to persuade the finder of fact that the proposition is more likely true than not.” In re: Arnold and Baker Farms, 177 B.R. 648 (9th Cir. BAP (Ariz.) 1994). See also Culpepper v. State of Arizona, 187 Ariz. 431, 930 P.2d 508 (App. 1996). It is “evidence which is of greater weight or more convincing than the evidence which is offered in opposition to it; that is, evidence which as a whole shows that the fact sought to be proved is more probable than not.” Black’s Law Dictionary 1182 (Rev. 6th ed. 1990).
The Administrative Law Judge may consider Registrar’s administrative record. See Ariz. Admin. Code § R4-9-118.
The preponderance of the evidence shows that Respondent abandoned the contract, which is a violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22).
6. The preponderance of the evidence shows that Respondent did not perform the work in a professional and workmanlike manner in violation of A.A.C. R4-9-108(A), and thereby of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3).
7. The preponderance of the evidence shows that Respondent failed to comply with the Directive without valid justification, which is a violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22).
8. The undisputed evidence shows that Respondent received a deposit and never began work on Complainant’s home. Respondent did not return Complainant’s deposit. Respondent failed to appear for the duly noticed and hearing and did not submit any evidence to defend its license. Consequently, the Administrative Law Judge concludes that indicates that at this time, Respondent cannot be regulated.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Based on the foregoing, it is recommended that on the effective date of the order in this matter, License No. ROC 332252 of Lone Cactus Construction LLC
shall be revoked.
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, May 1, 2025.
/s/ Velva Moses-Thompson
Administrative Law Judge
Transmitted by either mail, e-mail, or facsimile to:
Tom Cole, Director
Registrar of Contractors
Patricia Etcheverry
[email redacted]
Daniel Otero
[email redacted]
By: OAH Staff