ALJDEC - Licensing

2024A-13539-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2025-08-25

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

Susana Macias,

COMPLAINANT,

v.

Storm Pro Roofing LLC

License No. ROC 338078,

RESPONDENT.

No. 2024A-13539-CHC-ROC

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION

HEARING: August 8, 2025 at 1:00pm

APPEARANCES: Complainant Susana Macias on her own behalf. Catherine Hansen appeared on behalf of Respondent Storm Pro Roofing, LLC with witnesses Salvador Martinez and Daniel Delgadillo. Investigator Ruben Perez, Sr. appeared on behalf of the Arizona Registrar of Contractors. Spanish Interpreter Luigi M provided Spanish-English translation.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Nicole Robinson

EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: Arizona Registrar of Contractors Notice of Hearing Packet (“Packet”). Complainant Exhibit.

FINDINGS OF FACT

Storm Pro Roofing, LLC (“Respondent”) is the holder of License No. ROC 338078, first issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (“Registrar”) on May 9, 2022 for a Specialty Dual CR-42 Roofing license.

On or about April 10, 2024, Susana Macias (“Complainant”) entered into a contract with Respondent for, among other things, to install a new roof at her residential home located in Yuma, Arizona. The total amount of the contract was $14,135.00. While Respondent was repairing Complainant’s roof, one of the roofer’s fell through the ceiling and interior damage needed to be repaired, as well.

On or about December 12, 2024, the Registrar received a Complaint against Respondent from Complainant alleging poor work with respect to the project.

The Registrar assigned the complaint to Investigator Ruben Perez, Sr. Investigator Perez set up a jobsite inspection on December 30, 2024, with both parties present.

On January 2, 2025, after the jobsite inspection, Investigator Perez issued a Written Directive to Respondent that provided as follows:

After investigation, the Registrar determined that you failed to meet the requirements of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A), and now issues this Directive requiring you to take appropriate corrective action. Failure to comply with this Directive constitutes a violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22) and may result in the issuance of a citation, discipline of your license, and a civil penalty pursuant to A.R.S. § 32-1154(E) of up to $500.00. You must notify the Registrar’s assigned Investigator of your compliance with this Directive prior to 5:00 p.m. on Tuesday, January 21, 2025.

. . . .

DIRECTIVE REQUIREMENTS

You are directed to remedy the following violations by the appropriate means:

Complaint Item 1: cracked wall all the way across on the wall on top of the roof and didn't get fixed and is leaning now

Investigator’s Observation: Parapet wall stucco on rear side of residence was observed with crack along roof line. Complainant reported respondent caused this damage during roof installation. Respondent to correct by appropriate means.

. . . .

Complaint Item 3: roofer fell through the roof and created a big hole that got fixed but poorly

Investigator’s Observation: Ceiling in Northwest bedroom was observed damaged in two areas. Complainant reported respondent’s employee fell through attic during roof installation. Respondent to correct by appropriate means.

. . . .

Complaint Item 4: water pipe where water gets drained they broke some parts of the side wall on top of roof right by that water pipe

Investigator’s Observation: A scupper on East side of house was observed with damaged stucco around it. Complainant reported respondent’s employee caused this damage. Respondent to correct by appropriate means.

. . . .

Following the issuance of the Written Directive, Respondent did not fix any items. After the deadline in the directive expired, Investigator Perez was notified that no corrective work had been performed.

On February 19, 2025, the Registrar issued a Citation against Respondent, charging possible violations of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely Ariz. Admin. Code R4-9-108(A); and Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(22).

Hearing Evidence

Salvador Martinez testified on behalf of Respondent as its Production Manager for the last six years. Mr. Martinez testified that Complainant’s roof had “bad wood” due to termite damage. Mr. Martinez had never been to Complainant’s house to physically survey the work or damage.

Daniel Delgadillo testified on behalf of Respondent as a Salesman for the last two years. Mr. Delgadillo asserted that the roof damage was considered in Respondent’s contract price. Mr. Delgadillo admitted that he only visited the home, one time, and that Brian Gonzales, another Respondent salesman, attended the jobsite inspection.

Investigator Perez testified that Respondent never brought up anything about termite damage in regards to Complainant’s roof. Investigator Perez further argued that Respondent never asserted that Respondent roofer fell through Complainant’s ceiling because of termite damage. Regardless, Investigator Perez testified that Respondent performed no corrective work and a compliance inspection was not scheduled. On April 28, 2025, Investigator Perez performed a pre-hearing inspection, and testified that no work was performed and all three outstanding Written Directive items remained.

Complainant testified that she just wanted the damage to the bedroom and bathroom repaired. Complainant further testified that she paid $15,000.00 to Respondent.

Administrative notice was taken of Respondent’s prior License record on August 8, 2025, the day of the hearing. Such prior License record reflected that Respondent’s License No. ROC 338078 was Active. On August 25, 2025, such prior License record reflected that Respondent’s license was Suspended due to an insufficient bond and there were three open complaints.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

This matter lies within the Registrar’s jurisdiction.

Complainant bears the burden of proof to establish Respondent’s statutory violations by a preponderance of the evidence. A preponderance of the evidence means “[p]roof which leads the trier of fact to find that the existence of the contested fact is more probable than its nonexistence.”

Respondent’s suspended license does not deprive Complainants of their right to prosecute their complaint or prevent the Registrar from determining the merits of the complaint.

If Complainant’s roof suffered from termite damage or not, Respondent contracted to fix Complainant’s roof and, unfortunately, created major damage to the interior of her home. Furthermore, Respondent’s contract amount considered the current state of Complainant’s roof. As such, the evidence established that Respondent’s work was not in conformity with the Registrar’s standards. Therefore, Complainant established that Respondent did not complete the project in a workmanlike manner in violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely Ariz. Admin. Code R4-9-108(A).

Lastly, the evidence clearly established that Respondent did not attempt to complete the corrective work following the Directive being issued. Therefore, Complainant established that Respondent failed to take appropriate corrective action following a written directive from the Registrar in violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(22).

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Based on the foregoing,

It is recommended that on the effective date of the Order, the Registrar shall suspend Respondent’s License No. ROC 338078 for a period of seven days.

It is further recommended that the Registrar require Respondent to pay the sum of $500.00 as a civil penalty pursuant to Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(E).

It is further recommended that if Respondent fails to pay the entire amount of the civil penalty on or before thirty days following the effective date of the Registrar’s final order, the Registrar revoke Respondent’s license, effective on such deadline date. No future license shall be issued to any entity consisting of persons associated with Respondent, as defined in Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1101(A)(5), unless Respondent tenders payment of any outstanding prior civil penalty.

Pursuant to Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 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, August 25, 2025.

/s/ Nicole Robinson

Administrative Law Judge

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

Tom Cole, Director

Registrar of Contractors

c/o Legal Department

1700 W. Washington Street, Suite 105

Phoenix, AZ 85007

[email redacted]

Storm Pro Roofing LLC

1910 South Stapley Dr.

Mesa, AZ 85204

[email redacted]

Ruben Perez Sr.

[email redacted]

Susana Macias

3244 W Lisbon St.

Yuma, AZ 85364

[email redacted]

By: OAH Staff