ALJDEC - Licensing
2024A-11733-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2025-07-22
IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
Marcella Zinn,
COMPLAINANT,
v.
Pearl Epoxy Flooring LLC, License No. ROC 329913,
RESPONDENT.
No. 2024A-11733-CHC-ROC
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION
HEARING: July 2, 2025.
APPEARANCES:
For Complainant: Marcella and Brett Zinn.
For Respondent: Robert Lubanko.
For the Registrar of Contractors: Investigator Lisa Melton.
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. Complainant’s Exhibits.
_____________________________________________________________________
FINDINGS OF FACT
Pearl Epoxy Flooring LLC (Respondent) was the holder of License No. 329913, issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (Registrar) on July 27, 2020.
On or about March 5, 2024, Marcella Zinn (Complainant) entered into a contract with Respondent for, among other things, installing epoxy on the property.
On or about October 19, 2024, Complainant filed a Licensed Complaint Form with the Registrar, claiming poor work.
The Registrar assigned the complaint to Investigator Lisa Melton, who conducted a jobsite inspection on December 5, 2024; Respondent was properly noticed but was not present. Investigator Melton determined that the epoxy coating was cracking, peeling, and falling off in several areas.
Following the inspection, Investigator Melton issued a Written Directive From the Registrar to Respondent, requiring Respondent to correct the identified deficiencies by appropriate means.
On January 22, 2025, Complainant informed Investigator Melton that no corrective work had been performed on the project.
On January 30, 2025, the Registrar issued a Citation against Respondent, finding cause to charge Respondent with violations of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3), specifically R4-9-108(a); A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3), specifically R4-9-108(b); and A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22).
Respondent submitted an Answer to the Citation on February 8, 2025.
On February 24, 2025, the Registrar issued a Notice of Hearing on Contested Case.
Complainant allowed Respondent additional time to comply with the Directive. Respondent did some work; however, Respondent did not complete the corrective items, and Respondent caused new damage through the overspray of epoxy.
At the hearing, Investigator Melton testified in support of her findings.
Complainant testified that Respondent was given extra time, but Respondent failed to correct the issues and caused new damage.
Respondent testified that he could not guarantee epoxy wouldn’t crack. He testified that the only way to get rid of the cracks would be to lay new concrete.
Administrative notice was taken of Respondent’s prior License record on July 21, 2025. According to that record, Respondent’s License No. 329913 was on a disciplinary suspension.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
This matter lies within the Registrar’s jurisdiction.
Respondent’s suspended license does not deprive Complainant of the right to prosecute the complaint or prevent the Registrar from determining the merits of the complaint.
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.”
A contractor accepts the surface upon which they work. Prior to performing work, a contractor should inspect the surface for flaws or defects that would affect the work to be performed; if the surface is unacceptable, the contractor should call the defect to the owner’s attention so that the owner can choose to pay for corrective work or sign a specific warranty disclaimer.
When correcting work pursuant to a Written Directive From the Registrar, a contractor cannot damage property or create additional workmanship issues. Any damage or new deficiencies in workmanship must be fixed before the directive period ends. The preponderance of the evidence established that Respondent caused damage to Complainant’s property with overspray of epoxy while correcting defective work.
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 perform all work in accordance with applicable building codes and professional industry standards in violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(B).
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. 329913.
It is further recommended that the Registrar require Respondent to pay the sum of $100.00 as a civil penalty pursuant to A.R.S. § 32-1154(E).
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, July 22, 2025.
/s/ Samuel Fox
Administrative Law Judge
Transmitted by either mail, e-mail, or facsimile to:
Tom Cole, Director
Registrar of Contractors
Marcella Zinn
[email redacted]
Lisa Melton
[email redacted]
Pearl Epoxy Flooring LLC
[email redacted]
By: OAH Staff