ALJDEC - Licensing
2024A-13068-NPC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2025-09-29
IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
BG AGUILAR SOLUTIONS DRYWALL LLC
COMPLAINANT,
v.
Aksarben Redevelopment Incorporated
License No. ROC 295862,
RESPONDENT.
No. 2024A-13068-NPC-ROC
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION
HEARING: May 15, 2025, May 30, 2025, and September 9, 2025.
APPEARANCES: Gustavo Aguilar appeared on behalf of BG AGUILAR SOLUTIONS DRYWALL LLC (hereinafter “Complainant”). Suzette Dody, Esq. appeared on behalf of Aksarben Redevelopment Incorporated (“Respondent”).
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Velva Moses-Thompson
EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: Complainant’s Exhibits 1 through C
and Respondent 1 through 14.
_____________________________________________________________________
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. On February 28, 2025, the Registrar issued a Notice of Hearing to the parties setting the matter for hearing on March 31, 2025.
2. The hearing was continued and convened on May 15, 2025, with further hearings held on May 30, 2025 and September 9, 2025.
3. At hearing, Steven Walter testified on behalf of Complainant. Gustavo Aguilar and Jesus Mia testified on behalf of Respondent.
4. In October of 2024, Complainant issued invoices to Respondent for labor performed at the Rio Vista, Sun West, and Lake Pleasant projects. The invoices totaled $89,250.00. Respondent did not pay the invoices because Respondent believed that the price for labor far exceeded the current market pricing for the work.
5. In or around October 2024, Respondent and Complainant met twice to discuss the invoicing but were unable to reach a resolution.
6. Thereafter, Complainant filed a complaint with the Registrar alleging that Respondent failed to pay Complainant for labor provided to Respondent for the Rio Vista, Sun West, and Lake Pleasant projects when payment became due.
7. After receiving the complaint, Respondent determined that the amount owed to Complainant was $22,657.48 on the Rio Vista project, $2,500.00 on the Sun West project, and $500.00 on the Lake Pleasant project.
8. Respondent issued payment to Complainant dated January 8, 2025, in the amount of $25,417.54.
9. On February 28, 2025, the Registrar issued a Citation to Respondent alleging that Respondent had violated Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A) (10).
10. Respondent filed a timely answer to the Citation.
11. The matter was referred to the Office of Administrative Hearings for an evidentiary hearing.
12. The evidence presented at hearing shows that Complainant issued several invoices to Respondent with specific rates that was not agreed upon by the parties. Complainant provided insufficient evidence to establish that Respondent was indeed responsible for paying Complainant at the rate listed on the invoices. Furthermore, Complainant provided insufficient evidence regarding the number of hours that his employees worked on the projects. The evidence presented at hearing shows that at the time the complaint was filed, the parties had not come to an agreement regarding the price that would be charged for the work. Subsequently, Respondent did not dispute that Complainant should be paid $22,657.48 for the work. Mr. Walter provided credible testimony that he calculated the amount that Complainant should be paid for his work based on inudstry standards.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. This matter lies within the Registrar’s jurisdiction.
2. 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.
3. 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).
4. 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.")
5. “Statutes shall be liberally construed to effect their objects and to
promote justice.” Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 1-211(B).
6. 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).
7. Ariz. Rev. Stat section 32-1154(A) provides that:
The holder of a license or any person listed on a license pursuant to this chapter shall not commit any of the following acts or omissions: .... 10. Failure by a licensee or agent or official of a 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.
8. Upon consideration of the evidence presented at hearing, the Administrative Law Judge concludes Complainant failed to meet its burden to establish that Respondent that a payment in the amount of $89,250.00 became due for labor provided by Complainant to Respondent.
9. Accordingly, Complainant has failed to meet its burden to show that Respondent violated Ariz. Rev. Stat section 32-1154(A)(10) as alleged.
ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that the Citation and Complaint in Case No. 295862 is dismissed.
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 29, 2025.
/s/ Velva Moses-Thompson
Administrative Law Judge
Transmitted by either mail, e-mail, or facsimile to:
Tom Cole, Director
Registrar of Contractors
BG AGUILAR SOLUTIONS DRYWALL LLC
[email redacted]
Suzette S. Doody Esq.
COLLINSWORTH, SPECHT, CALKINS & GIAMPAOLI, LLP
[email redacted]
Aksarben Redevelopment Incorporated
[email redacted]
By: OAH Staff