ALJDEC - Licensing

2024A-12666-NPC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2025-03-12

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

MARS Renovations LLC,

COMPLAINANT

v.

Restore Pro's USA, LLC

License No. ROC 351064,

RESPONDENT

No. 2024A-12666-NPC-ROC

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION

HEARING: February 25, 2025

APPEARANCES: Mahelio and Kriss Rico appeared via Google Meet on behalf of Complainant MARS Renovations LLC. Shon Dennis appeared via Google Meet on behalf of Respondent Restore Pro’s USA, LLC.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Adam D. Stone

EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: Complainant’s Exhibits 1-5 were admitted into evidence.

_____________________________________________________________________

FINDINGS OF FACT

On December 24, 2024, the Registrar of Contractors (“ROC”) issued a Notice of Hearing on Contested Case setting the above-captioned matter for hearing on January 31, 2025 at the Office of Administrative Hearings.

The Notice of Hearing shows that the hearing was being conducted on the charges made in the complaint, and citation that were served on Respondent Restore Pro’s USA, LLC on December 2, 2024. A copy of the Notice of Hearing, as well as an Order containing the Google Meet information was mailed and e-mailed to Respondent’s addresses of record.

Through the citation and Notice of Hearing, ROC alleges that Respondent may have violated Ariz. Rev. Stat. section 32-1154(A)(10).

Respondent holds License No. 351064 issued by ROC.

Complainant is MARS Renovations LLC.

Complainant was to remove the homeowner’s belongings and remove carpet for an insulation on a project for which Respondent was the general contractor.

On November 14, 2024, Complainant filed with ROC a complaint against Respondent alleging that Respondent owed Complainant $10,544.64.

After a continuance, the hearing was convened on February 25, 2025.

Ms. Rico testified that there were four invoices which remained unpaid, namely the following:

Invoice 81 in the amount of $1,000.00.

Invoice 82 in the amount of $728.50.

Invoice 83 in the amount of $7,550.18.

Invoice 84 in the amount of $1,265.96.

Ms. Rico testified that invoices 81 and 84 contained credits for payments made by Respondent.

Further, Ms. Rico acknowledged that the project was incomplete as Respondent fired Complainant. Because of this, Ms. Rico testified, that she only charged for 30% of the work as that was what she estimated was completed before being told to leave the project.

Mr. Dennis testified that he acknowledged that some monies were owed as Complainant provided the storage, and completed demolition of 3 rooms, 2 rooms of carpet removal and removed some insulation.

In addition, Mr. Dennis testified that Complainant’s were not overseeing their workers and alleged that a worker stole the homeowner’s watch.

Finally, Mr. Dennis testified that he had not been fully paid on the project.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

Unless otherwise provided by law, a party asserting a claim, right, or entitlement bears the burden of proof; a party asserting an affirmative defense has the burden of establishing the affirmative defense. The standard of proof on all issues in this matter is that of a preponderance of the evidence. Ariz. Admin. Code § R2-19-119.

“At a hearing on an agency action to suspend, revoke, terminate or modify on its own initiative material conditions of a license or permit, the agency has the burden of persuasion.” Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 41-1092.07(G)(2).

A preponderance of the evidence is:

The 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.

Black’s Law Dictionary 1373 (10th ed. 2014).

Statutes should be interpreted to provide a fair and sensible result. Gutierrez v. Industrial Commission of Arizona, 226 Ariz. 395, 249 P.3d 1095 (2011)(citation omitted); State v. McFall, 103 Ariz. 234, 238, 439 P.2d 805, 809 (1968) ("Courts will not place an absurd and unreasonable construction on statutes.").

“Statutes shall be liberally construed to effect their objects and to promote justice.” Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 1-211(B).

The purpose of the Registrar’s licensing statutes is to protect the public from unscrupulous, unqualified, and financially irresponsible contractors. See Aesthetic Property Maintenance v. Capital Indem. Corp., 183 Ariz. 74, 900 P. 2d 1210 (1995).

Among the grounds for suspension or revocation of a contractor’s license is a “[f]ailure by [the] licensee . . . to pay monies in excess of seven hundred fifty dollars when due for materials or services rendered in connection with the licensee’s operations as a contractor when the licensee has the capacity to pay or, if the licensee lacks the capacity to pay, when the licensee has received sufficient monies as payment for the particular construction work project or operation for which the services or materials were rendered or purchased.” Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(10).

The preponderance of the evidence shows that Respondent owes Complainant more than $750.00 for materials purchased and work performed in connection with Respondent’s operations as a contractor. From the credible evidence provided, the tribunal believes that Complainant properly estimated the amount due for the services it provided. Respondent too acknowledged that insulation was removed, carpet was removed, there was demolition to 3 rooms, and Complainant packed and hauled homeowner’s belongings. Respondent however failed to provide any number of what he believed was a fair payment, therefore the most credible evidence was Complainant’s invoices.

Therefore, the tribunal finds that the amount due is $10,544.64.

Therefore, the preponderance of the evidence shows that Respondent has violated section 32-1154(A)(10).

Respondent’s license should be suspended until it pays to Complainant $10,544.64.

RECOMMENDED ORDER

IT IS RECOMMENDED that Restore Pro’s USA, LLC’s license number 351064 be suspended until the Registrar receives proof that it has paid to MARS Renovations LLC $10,544.64.

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, March 12, 2025.

/s/ Adam D. Stone

Administrative Law Judge

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

Tom Cole, Director

Registrar of Contractors

MARS Renovations LLC

[email redacted]

Shon Dennis

Restore Pro's USA, LLC

[email redacted]

[email redacted]

By: OAH Staff