ALJDEC - Licensing
2024A-12359-NPC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2025-09-25
IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
Trumbull Trucking,
COMPLAINANT,
v.
Arizona Construction Industries, LLC
DBA: Patterson Paving,
License No. ROC 345153,
RESPONDENT.
No. 2024A-12359-NPC-ROC
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION
HEARING: August 22, 2025.
APPEARANCES:
For Complainant: Cameron Mitchell.
For Respondent: Karen Palecek.
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 A through Q and Patterson Invoice. Respondent’s Exhibits 1 through 9.
_____________________________________________________________________
FINDINGS OF FACT
Arizona Construction Industries, LLC (Respondent) was the holder of License No. 345153, issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (Registrar) on May 22, 2023.
In December 2023 and January and February 2024, Respondent hired Complainant for trucking services. Generally, Respondent hired Complainant through verbal agreements, and some communications were exchanged through text message.
At least three individuals represented themselves as employees of Respondent when communicating with Complainant about performing trucking services for Respondent. All three of those individuals worked for Respondent at some point.
Complainant submitted at least 12 invoices between December 2023 and February 2024. Respondent paid a single invoice. Respondent did not contact Complainant to notify Complainant that fraud was being committed on their account despite Respondents apparent belief that Complainant was not performing work for Respondent.
Several invoices Complainant claimed were due by Respondent name Pettit Consulting as the customer.
Frank Bedard .was the owner of Complainant. He testified in support of the money being owed. He testified that Respondent told Complainant to put Pettit Consulting on some of the invoices. He testified that they submitted the invoices to Respodent.
Kyle Brummels testified that he was employed with Respondent as a superintendent for most of 2023. He testified that Respondent hired Complainant for some of its jobs. He testified that one of the other contacts identified by Complainant did work for Respondent. He testified that Pettit Consulting was a name that Respondent used to buy materials. He testified that when Respondent ended his employment, he was not given a reason.
Edward Britt was the owner of Respondent. He testified that the relevant invoices were for materials that were not delivered to Respondent’s worksites, and the individuals who ordered the materials were not employees of Respondent or were not authorized to order materials. He testified that Pettit Consulting was a different contractor who did not order materials for Respondent. He testified that Respondent did its own trucking work, and he believed Respondent did not owe Complainant anything.
Tyson Beringer was general manager for Respondent and had previously held other jobs in the company. He testified there were no invoices in their computer system, but one invoice did get paid.
Complainant provided an invoice from Patterson Paving for a job occurring at an address that matched the address identical to that for Invoice 9269. Respondent’s witness stated that the invoice did not look like the invoices that Respondent used at that time. Respondent was given the opportunity to provide a copy of an invoice that was representative of invoices used during the relevant period with an attestation that it was representative. Respondent provided what appeared to be a newly created invoice without an attestation that it was representative of invoices during the relevant period.
Administrative notice was taken of Respondent’s prior License record on September 25, 2025. According to that record, Respondent’s License No. 345153 was revoked.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
This matter lies within the Registrar’s jurisdiction.
Complainant bore the burden of proof to establish Respondent’s statutory violations by a preponderance of the evidence. Respondent bore 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.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(10) includes among the grounds for suspension, revocation, or other disciplinary action against a contractor’s license,
[f]ailure by a licensee or agent or official of a licensee to pay monies in excess of $750 when due for materials or services rendered in connection with the licensee's operations as a contractor unless the licensee proves that the licensee lacks the capacity to pay and has not received sufficient monies as payment for the particular construction work project or operation for which the services or materials were rendered or purchased.
Statutes should be interpreted to provide a fair and sensible result and “be liberally construed to effect their objects and to promote justice.”
Complainant established by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent failed to pay for services Complainant provided to Respondent in connection with Respondent’s operations as a contractor. However, Complainant failed to establish by the preponderance of the evidence that services rendered to Pettit Consulting were rendered to Respondent.
Therefore, the Administrative Law Judge finds grounds to impose discipline against Respondent’s license.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Based on the foregoing, it is recommended that Respondent pay Complainant $36,577.00 within thirty (30) days of the Order becoming effective, and if Respondent fails to do so, the Registrar shall suspend Respondent’s License No. 345153 until Respondent provides proof that it has paid Complainant in full.
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, September 25, 2025.
/s/ Samuel Fox
Administrative Law Judge
Transmitted by either mail, e-mail, or facsimile to:
Tom Cole, Director
Registrar of Contractors
Karen A. Palecek, Esq
Palecek & Palecek PLLC
6263 N Scottsdale Rd Ste 144
Scottsdale, AZ 85250-5427
[email redacted]
Cameron Mitchell
Counxel Legal Firm
2222 South Dobson Road, Suite 1104
Mesa, Arizona 85234
[email redacted]
By: OAH Staff