ALJDEC decisions subject to certification as final
2024A-11733-RFA-LS-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2026-02-12
IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
Marcella Alderman
COMPLAINANT,
v.
Pearl Epoxy Flooring, LLC
License No. ROC 329913,
RESPONDENT.
No. 2024A-11733-RFA-LS-ROC
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION
HEARING: January 23, 2026
APPEARANCES: Marcella Alderman (Complainant) appeared on behalf of herself. Robert Lubanko appeared on behalf of Pearl Epoxy Flooring, LLC (Respondent).
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Velva Moses-Thompson
EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: Registrar’s Exhibits 1 through 11.
_____________________________________________________________________
FINDINGS OF FACT
On or about March 5, 2024, Complainant and Respondent entered into a residential construction contract, wherein Respondent agreed to install epoxy in Complainant’s home for $6,300.00. See Exhibts 5.
Complainant subsequently filed a complaint with the Registrar alleging poor work on the part of Respondent. See Exhibit 1.
The Registrar investigated the complaint and issued a Directive to Respondent.
The Registrar issued a Citation against Respondent’s license after conducting an investigation into the complaint. See Exhibit 2.
Respondent filed an answer to the Citation, and the matter was referred to the Office of Administrative Hearings for an evidentiary hearing. See Exhibit 3.
A hearing was held on July 2, 2025. See Exhibit 3.
On July 22, 2025, Administrative Law Judge Fox issued a recommended decision concluding that Respondent had violated Ariz. Rev. Stat. §§ 32-1154(A)(3) and (22). See Exhibit 3.
On August 5, 2025, the Registrar accepted the July 22, 2025 recommended decision and suspended Respondent’s license on the business day following September 17, 2025. See Exhibit 3.
On October 8, 2025, Complainant filed a claim for a payout from the Registrar’s recovery fund.
Complainant submitted an itemized bid from Sun Valley Epoxy LLC License No. ROC 349084 in the amount of $5,011.50.
The Registrar determined that the bid from Sun Valley Epoxy LLC included the necessary repairs to remedy Respondent’s violation.
The Registrar determined that the original contract price was $6,300.00.
Complainant paid $5,500 toward the contract and the unpaid balance was $800.
The Registrar subtracted the amount of the unpaid balance from the amount of the bid to calculate Complainant’s actual damages.
The Registrar determined that Complainant’s actual damages were $4,211.50.
On October 23, 2025, the Registrar issued a Notice of Administrative Award that notified Complainant that she was eligible to receive an award from the fund in the amount of $4,211.50.
Respondent filed a Notice of Appeal.
The matter was referred to the Office of Administrative Hearings for an evidentiary hearing.
A hearing was held on January 23, 2026.
At hearing, the Registrar presented the testimony of Laura Johnston, Legal Assistant II, at the Registrar. Complainant testified on behalf of herself and presented the testimony of Brett Zinn. Robert Lubanko testified on behalf of Respondent.
At hearing, Mr. Lubanko asserted that Complainant did not allow him to complete the job. However, Mr. Lubanko did not present any evidence to show that the amount of the award was improper.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
This matter lies within the Registrar’s jurisdiction.
A.R.S. § 32-1132(A) provides that “[a]n award from the fund is limited to the actual damages suffered by the claimant as a direct result of the contractor's violation but shall not exceed an amount necessary to complete or repair a residential structure or appurtenance within residential property lines. . . .” Respondent bears the burden of proof to establish that the proposed payout from the Fund is incorrect 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 preponderance of the evidence is “[t]he greater weight of the evidence, not necessarily established by the greater number of witnesses testifying to a fact but by evidence that has the most convincing force; superior evidentiary weight that, though not sufficient to free the mind wholly from all reasonable doubt, is still sufficient to incline a fair and impartial mind to one side of the issue rather than the other.”
After review of all the evidence, the Tribunal concludes that the award provided by the Fund is an accurate reflection of Complainants’ actual damages. The award appears to properly remedy the workmanship and abandonment violations for which Respondent was responsible. In the absence of contemporaneous documentary evidence that the bid utilized was excessive, the Tribunal finds that the bid was, in fact, appropriate.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Based on the foregoing, it is recommended that on the effective date of the Registrar’s final order, Complainant receive a payout from the Residential Contractors’ Recovery Fund in the amount of $4, 211.50.
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.
-54864001
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
001
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
-137160-45720000Done this day, February 12, 2026.
/s/ Velva Moses-Thompson
Administrative Law Judge
Transmitted by either mail, e-mail, or facsimile to:
Tom Cole, Director
Registrar of Contractors
[email redacted]
Marcella Alderman
[email redacted]
Pearl Epoxy Flooring LLC
[email redacted]
By: OAH Staff