ALJDEC - Licensing
2024A-13647-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2025-05-23
IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
Ieasa Murphy,
COMPLAINANT
v.
RRTM L.L.C.,
License No. ROC 350086,
RESPONDENT
No. 2024A-13647-CHC-ROC
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION
HEARING: May 9, 2025
APPEARANCES: Complainant Ieasa Murphy appeared on her own behalf via Google Meet. Jim Weightman Jr. appeared via Google Meet on behalf of Respondent RRTM L.L.C. Registrar of Contractors Investigator Mike Wiskow appeared via Google Meet.
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Adam D. Stone
EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE:
_____________________________________________________________________
FINDINGS OF FACT
RRTM L.L.C. (Respondent) is the holder of License No. 350086 issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (Registrar).
On or about October 10, 2024, Complainant hired Respondent to perform a remodeling project at her home in Peoria, Arizona.
On or about December 16, 2024, the Registrar received a Complaint against Respondent from Complainant alleging poor work with respect to project.
The Registrar assigned the complaint to Investigator Mike Wiskow. The jobsite inspection was performed on January 27, 2025.
Investigator Wiskow then issued a Written Directive on or about January 29, 2025, which provided in pertinent part 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 Friday, February 14, 2025.
. . .
DIRECTIVE REQUIREMENTS
You are directed to remedy the following violations by the appropriate means:
Complaint Item: 1 - 1. No permit was obtained from the city of Peoria before work began.
Investigator’s Observation: Confirmed. A permit is required for this project. There currently is no permit.
Contractor should obtain all necessary permits and complete the project including final inspection signature by appropriate means.
Governing Rule: Departure from or disregard of: (b) A building code of this state or any political subdivision of this state in any material respect that is prejudicial to another.
A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(2)(b)
Complaint Item: 2 - Contactor had unlicensed employee, "Tank", work on and complete all plumbing and electrical work.
Investigator’s Observation: Confirmed. Contractor should use only the appropriately licensed personnel for the plumbing and electric.
Governing Rule: Attempting to evade this chapter by: (a) Aiding or abetting a licensed or unlicensed person.
A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(9)(a)
Complaint Item: 5 - New front door was cut into block load bearing wall and has no lentil or other load bearing support.
Investigator’s Observation: Confirmed. The front door was installed in a block wall that was cut out. No beam added. There should be a properly sized beam added tpo the fron door.
Contractor should repair by appropriate means.
Governing Rule: Departure from or disregard of: (b) A building code of this state or any political subdivision of this state in any material respect that is prejudicial to another.
A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(2)(b)
Complaint Item: 6 - Exterior wall does not have appropriate water barrier and does not have lags at appropriate locations
Investigator’s Observation: Confirmed. The old door was removed and has not been patched. The hole should be covered with the appropriate sheathing and siding.
Contractor should repair by appropriate means.
Governing Rule: Violation of any rule adopted by the Registrar; Namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(a): A contractor shall perform all work in a professional and workmanlike manner.
A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) - R4-9-108(A) Workmanship
Complaint Item: 7 -Window is installed without appropriate water proofing.
Investigator’s Observation: Confirmed. The window is installed without any rough opening preparation. The rough opening should be properly prepared before window installation. The window should be installed per manufacturer’s specification.
Contractor should repair by appropriate means.
Governing Rule: Violation of any rule adopted by the Registrar; Namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(a): A contractor shall perform all work in a professional and workmanlike manner.
A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) - R4-9-108(A) Workmanship
Complaint Item: 8 -Mini split installed above ground on unsteady brackets, electrical wires exposed, not properly insulated.
Investigator’s Observation: Confirmed. The brackets are unstable. The brackets should be stable. The electrical connection is improper. The electrical connections should have the proper end connectors. The overall installation of the electrical wires, the high and low pressure copper lines and the condensate line are unsightly, incomplete and not properly supported.
Contractor should repair by appropriate means.
Governing Rule: Violation of any rule adopted by the Registrar; Namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(a): A contractor shall perform all work in a professional and workmanlike manner.
A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) - R4-9-108(A) Workmanship
Complaint Item: 9 - Electrical Sub panel installed by employee that is an unlicensed electrician.
Investigator’s Observation: Confirmed. Per both parties, Tank installed he electrical subpanel outside. Per the respondent, Tank is not a licensed
electrician nor is the respondent. After proper permitting, the subpanel should be checked by an appropriately licensed electrician and get signed off by the local building authority.
Governing Rule: Attempting to evade this chapter by: (a) Aiding or abetting
a licensed or unlicensed person.
A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(9)(a)
Complaint Item: 10 -Water main, trenched and replaced by employee that is an unlicensed plumber.
Investigator’s Observation: Confirmed. Per both parties, Tank installed water line and DWV line. Per the respondent, Tank is not a licensed plumber
nor is the respondent. After proper permitting, the affected plumbing lines should be checked by an appropriately licensed plumber and get signed off by the local building authority.
Governing Rule: Attempting to evade this chapter by: (a) Aiding or abetting a licensed or unlicensed person.
A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(9)(a)
Complaint Item: 11 - Electrical conduit on east side of house not secured and not water proofed.
Investigator’s Observation: Confirmed. The conduit is not sealed or installed properly. It is also unsightly and not properly supported. After proper permitting, the exterior conduit should be checked by an appropriately licensed electrician and get signed off by the local building authority.
Governing Rule: Violation of any rule adopted by the Registrar; Namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(a): A contractor shall perform all work in a professional and workmanlike manner.
A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) - R4-9-108(A) Workmanship
Complaint Item: 12 - The plumbing vent in bathroom is 9ft from planned toilet drain and 9ft from planned shower drain.
Investigator’s Observation: Confirmed. The plumbing vent in the bathroom is too far away from the the shower and toilet drains at 9 feet. For a 1 1⁄2-inc pipe the vent should be 42 inches away at the most while a 2-inch pipe must have a maximum distance of 5 feet. For pipes that have a diameter of 3 inches the distance is 6 feet. After proper permitting, the affected plumbing lines should be checked by an appropriately licensed plumber and get signed off by the local building authority.
Contractor should repair by appropriate means.
Governing Rule: Departure from or disregard of: (b) A building code of this state or any political subdivision of this state in any material respect that is prejudicial to another.
A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(2)(b)
Complaint Item: 13 - The plumbing vent in bathroom incomplete and path blocked by conduit box.
Investigator’s Observation: Confirmed. There is an incomplete DWV vent in the wall. All drains in the bathroom should be properly vented. After proper permitting, the affected plumbing lines should be checked by an appropriately licensed plumber and get signed off by the local building authority.
Contractor should repair by appropriate means.
Governing Rule: Departure from or disregard of: (b) A building code of this state or any political subdivision of this state in any material respect that is prejudicial to another.
A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(2)(b)
Complaint Item: 14 - Contractor plans to encase water lines and valves under drywall.
Investigator’s Observation: Confirmed. Per both parties, the gate valves behind the proposed washer will potentially be covered by sheetrock. Those gate valves should be accessible.
Contractor should repair by appropriate means.
Governing Rule: Departure from or disregard of: (b) A building code of this state or any political subdivision of this state in any material respect that is prejudicial to another.
A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(2)(b)
Complaint Item: 16 - Shower slop in incorrect for curbless shower and is incomplete.
Investigator’s Observation: Confirmed. The shower is incomplete.
Contractor should finish shower with appropriate slope in the pan.
Contractor should repair by appropriate means.
Governing Rule: Violation of any rule adopted by the Registrar; Namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(a): A contractor shall perform all work in a professional and workmanlike manner.
A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) - R4-9-108(A) Workmanship
Complaint Item: 17 - Not using appropriate water barrier on bathrooms
Investigator’s Observation: Confirmed. There is currently 1/4" fiberboard partially covering the shower walls. The shower should be completed with the appropriate backer.
Contractor should repair by appropriate means.
Governing Rule: Violation of any rule adopted by the Registrar; Namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(a): A contractor shall perform all work in a professional and workmanlike manner.
A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) - R4-9-108(A) Workmanship
Complaint Item: 18 - Subfloor in kitchen not level, flat, even. Effects the
flooring they installed.
Investigator’s Observation: Confirmed. At the point measured, the kitchen had a high spot 3/4" high in 48". Floors should not vary from flat more than 1/4" over a 10 foot area providing the deviation is gradual.
Contractor should verify the floors and repair by appropriate means.
Governing Rule: Violation of any rule adopted by the Registrar; Namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(a): A contractor shall perform all work in a professional and workmanlike manner.
A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) - R4-9-108(A) Workmanship
Complaint Item: 19 - Cabinet paint is rough and not completed, very
unprofessional looking/feeling work.
Investigator’s Observation: Confirmed. The paint on the cabonets is rough and/or incomplete in several areas. The paint should not be rough and should be finished.
Contractor should repair by appropriate means.
Governing Rule: Violation of any rule adopted by the Registrar; Namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(a): A contractor shall perform all work in a professional and workmanlike manner.
A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) - R4-9-108(A) Workmanship
Complaint Item: 20 - Butcher block countertops cuts uneven and not
repairable, needs replaced.
Investigator’s Observation: Confirmed. The kitchen butcher-block seam is unacceptable. The seam should not vary in height and there should be no gap.
The gaps on the right of the countertop are unacceptable.
Contractor should repair by appropriate means.
Governing Rule: Violation of any rule adopted by the Registrar; Namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(a): A contractor shall perform all work in a professional and workmanlike manner.
A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) - R4-9-108(A) Workmanship
Complaint Item: 26 - Some kind of substance was left in backyard within reach of toddler and pets. Some was spilled on back patio.
Investigator’s Observation: Confirmed. Purple primer for plumbing pipes was spilled on the bricks in the back yard.
Contractor should repair/clean by appropriate means.
Governing Rule: Violation of any rule adopted by the Registrar; Namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(a): A contractor shall perform all work in a professional and workmanlike manner.
A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) - R4-9-108(A) Workmanship
Complaint Item: 28 - Paint on driveway, grass, brick
Investigator’s Observation: Confirmed. There is paint spilled on these surfaces.
Contractor should repair/clean by appropriate means.
Governing Rule: Violation of any rule adopted by the Registrar; Namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(a): A contractor shall perform all work in a professional and workmanlike manner.
A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) - R4-9-108(A) Workmanship
Complaint Item: 29 - Gas line hanging from wall
Investigator’s Observation: Confirmed. There is an abandoned gas line hanging in the laundry room. All gas lines should be properly terminated.
Contractor should repair by appropriate means.
Governing Rule: Violation of any rule adopted by the Registrar; Namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(a): A contractor shall perform all work in a professional and workmanlike manner.
A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) - R4-9-108(A) Workmanship
Complaint Item: 30 - Old electrical cord from old oven hanging from ceiling.
Investigator’s Observation: Confirmed. Unable to verify if the abandoned 240 V line has been properly terminated. Electrical lines in walls should be
assumed hot. Contractor should verify.
Contractor should repair by appropriate means.
Governing Rule: Violation of any rule adopted by the Registrar; Namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(a): A contractor shall perform all work in a professional and workmanlike manner.
A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) - R4-9-108(A) Workmanship
Complaint Item: 31 - Drywall seams visible in bedroom and kitchen.
Investigator’s Observation: Confirmed. The drywall seams in the bedroom are visible. The seams should not be visible.
Contractor should repair by appropriate means.
Governing Rule: Violation of any rule adopted by the Registrar; Namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(a): A contractor shall perform all work in a professional and workmanlike manner.
A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) - R4-9-108(A) Workmanship
Complaint Item: 32 - completely different texture in kitchen then in rest of house
Investigator’s Observation: Confirmed. The texture is different. The texture should be similar to the existing walls.
Contractor should repair by appropriate means.
Governing Rule: Violation of any rule adopted by the Registrar; Namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(a): A contractor shall perform all work in a professional and workmanlike manner.
A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) - R4-9-108(A) Workmanship
Complaint Item: 33 - NO lights have been installed.
Investigator’s Observation: Confirmed. The lights in the kitchen have not been installed.
After proper permitting, the affected electrical installation should be installed
by an appropriately licensed electrician and get signed off by the local building authority.
Contractor should supply and install the lights per plan and specifications by appropriate means.
Governing Rule: Abandonment of a contract or refusal to perform after submitting a bid on work without legal excuse for the abandonment or refusal.
A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(1)
Complaint Item: 34 - Numerous items on scope of work remain unfinished for phase one. Phase 2 has not began.
Investigator’s Observation: Confirmed. The project is not complete.
Contractor should finish contract by plans and specs along with the appropriate permits by appropriate means.
Governing Rule: Abandonment of a contract or refusal to perform after submitting a bid on work without legal excuse for the abandonment or refusal.
A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(1)...
(All errors contained in the original).
On February 19, 2025, the Registrar issued a Citation against Respondent, charging possible violations of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(2)(b); A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(A); A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(9)(a); A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(12) - A.R.S. § 32-1158; and A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22).
On or about March 4, 2025, Respondent submitted an Answer to the Registrar.
On or about March 24, 2025, a Notice of Hearing was issued setting a hearing on May 9, 2025, at the Office of Administrative Hearings, an independent state agency.
At hearing, Investigator Wiskow testified as to the Registrar’s involvement and the above timeline and findings.
Investigator Wiskow testified that Respondent contacted him two days prior to the expiration of the Written Directive, and requested a hearing on the same and that no corrective work had been completed.
Complainant testimony echoed Investigator Wiskow’s as to the status of the project. Complainant also testified that she was never informed that a permit was needed. Complainant also testified that she was hesitant to pay for the second phase of the project, as they had completely paid for the first phase, and it was not completed.
Mr. Weightman testified that he accepted some of the findings from the Written Directive, but that the project was incomplete. Further, he believed that Complainant was not going to pay, he walked off the job. Because of this too, he did not complete the corrective work.
As to the permitting issue, Mr. Wrightman testified that he was aware that a permit was needed prior to commencement of the project, and informed Complainant of the same, but he commenced the project anyway.
Administrative notice was taken of Respondent’s prior License record on May 23, 2025. Such prior License record reflected that Respondent’s License No. 350086 was first issued on February 6, 2024, and reflected that there was one open case, namely the present case.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
This matter lies within the Registrar’s jurisdiction. See A.R.S. § 32-1101 et seq.
Complainant bears the burden of proof to establish Respondent’s statutory violations by a preponderance of the evidence. See A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2); A.A.C. R2-19-119(A) and A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1); see also Vazzano v. Superior Court, 74 Ariz. 369, 372, 249 P.2d 837 (1952). “A preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.” Morris K. Udall, Arizona Law of Evidence § 5 (1960).
The preponderance of the evidence established that there was a violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(2)(b), as there was no permit obtained prior to commencement of the work.
The preponderance of the evidence established that there was a violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(A), as Directive items 6-8, 11, 16-20, 26, 28- 32, were not completed in a workmanlike manner.
The preponderance of the evidence established that there was a violation A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(9)(a); as there were unlicensed contractors being used on the jobsite.
The preponderance of the evidence established that the contract were in violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(12), namely A.R.S. § 32-1158.
Finally, the preponderance of the evidence established Respondent failed 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 A.R.S. § 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. 350086 for a period of five days.
It is further recommended that the Registrar require Respondent to pay the sum of $500.00 as a civil penalty pursuant to A.R.S. § 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 A.R.S. § 32-1101(A)(7), unless Respondent tenders payment of any outstanding prior civil penalty.
It is further recommended that Respondent be ordered to provide the Registrar with a sample contract which complies with A.R.S. § 32-1158. It is recommended that Respondent’s license remain suspended until it complies with the same.
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, May 23, 2025.
/s/ Adam D. Stone
Administrative Law Judge
Transmitted by either mail, e-mail, or facsimile to:
Tom Cole, Director
Registrar of Contractors
Ieasa Murphy
[email redacted]
RRTM L.L.C.
[email redacted]
By: OAH Staff