ALJDEC - Licensing
2024A-13648-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2025-06-23
IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
Cindy Romano,
COMPLAINANT,
v.
The C 5 Company Inc,
License No. ROC 291824,
RESPONDENT.
No. 2024A-13648-CHC-ROC
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION
HEARING: June 6, 2025
APPEARANCES: Cindy Romano (hereinafter “Complainant”) appeared on behalf of herself. No one appeared on behalf of The C 5 Company Inc (hereinafter “Respondent”).
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Velva Moses-Thompson
EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: Exhibit A, the Registrar’s administrative record, 85 pages.
_____________________________________________________________________
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. On April 9, 2025, the Arizona Registrar of Contractors, (hereinafter “Registrar” or “ROC”), mailed a Notice of Hearing to Complainant and Respondent at their addresses of record, setting the above-entitled matter for hearing on May 27, 2025 at 9:00 a.m. The Notice of Hearing provided, in relevant part, as follows:
................................
You must attend this hearing. This is an adversarial hearing before an administrative law judge, and is conducted in a similar manner as judicial proceedings. Thus, you must be prepared to present evidence, including witness testimony and documents, in support of your case.
................................
The complaint and citation allege that the Respondent committed the following act(s): Charge: 1 A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) - R4-9-108(a) Charge: 2 A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22)
................................
Because Respondent is a licensee and is charged with an act(s) or omission(s) that is cause for the suspension or revocation of a license, Respondent is a party to this case and will be a party to the hearing. Because Complainant alleged Respondent committed an act(s) or omission(s) that is cause for the suspension or revocation of a license, Complainant is a party to this case and will be a party to the hearing. Respondent and Complainant, as the parties to the hearing, will present evidence and argument to the administrative law judge.
................................
2. Complainant filed a motion to continue the hearing date.
3. On April 15, 2025, Administrative Law Judge Jenna Clark issued an order granting the motion and continuing the hearing date to June 6, 2025 at 1:00 p.m. The order was mailed to the parties at their addresses of record.
4. A hearing was held on June 6, 2025.
5. At hearing, Complainant testified on behalf of herself. Charles Riddlehoover, an ROC investigator, testified regarding his investigation of the complaint.
6. No one appeared on behalf of Respondent at the hearing on June 6, 2025. Although the hearing did not start until approximately 1:15 p.m., no one appeared on behalf of Respondent through an authorized member, officer, employee, or attorney, or contact the OAH to request that the start of the hearing be further delayed. Consequently, Respondent did not present any evidence to defend its license.
7. On or about January 6, 2024, Complainant and Respondent entered into a residential remodeling project for the amount of $159,389.00.
8. On or about January 16, 2024, Respondent started work.
9. On or about June 14, 2024, Respondent stopped work.
10. Complainant subsequently filed a complaint with the ROC alleging poor work and abandonment on the part of Respondent.
11. On or about February 11, 2025, ROC Investigator Charles Riddlehoover conducted a job-site inspection.
12. On February 14, 2025, the Registrar issued a Directive directing Respondent to complete the following complaint item by appropriate means, no later than 5:00 p.m. on March 5, 2025:
..............................
Complaint Item: 1 - $3,000.00: Credit for staining grids $2,359.83 : New
Anderson grids and labor to install $913.00 : Staining new grids
Investigator’s Observation: During our inspection it was observed that the
sliding patio doors did not have the stained grids on the doors leading from the
kitchen to the outdoor kitchen area of the patio. Therefore the ROC was unable
to verify, cannot determine complaint item constitutes poor work due to job
being incomplete (abandonment).
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: 3 - $3,500.00: Estimate to stucco the wall around the
outdoor kitchen damaged from granite install (caulk).
Investigator’s Observation: During our inspection it was observed that the
caulking around the outdoor kitchen granite had cracking and showed several
places where there was a lack of sufficient caulking.
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: 6 - Cabinets not sanded and refinished on proposal 201.
Touched up only.
Investigator’s Observation: During inspection, the complaint item was not
yet completed. Respondent shall correct by the 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
..............................
13. Respondent performed no corrective work under the Directive.
14. On March 19, 2025, the ROC issued a Citation against Respondent’s license for alleged violations of Ariz. Rev. Stat. §§ 32-1154(A)(3), and (22); Ariz. Admin. Code R4-9-108(A).
15. Kevin Collins, the qualifying party for Respondent, filed a timely answer to the Citation on behalf of Respondent. In the answer, Mr. Collins alleged that the granite was installed perfectly. Mr. Collins wrote with regard to the grids, “The grids should have been boxed separate for the ANDERSEN DOORS so finishing would be easy. They arrived installed. The onsite staining did not fully cover the backs of the grids against the glass. My painter subsequently removed them to add stain. A few broke in the process. We all decided to order new wood window grids.”
16. At hearing, Complainant testified to the effect that Respondent was unprofessional and performed poor work. Complainant explained that the owner, Kevin Collins, would leave for extended periods of time and Complainant was unable to successfully contact him. Complainant explained that Respondent’s contractors would come to her home unannounced and without direction from Mr. Collins.
17. Administrative notice is taken of the Registrar’s public website. According to the information available on the website on June 23, 2025, Respondent’s license was first issued on June 10, 2014, and is active. Such prior License record also shows that there is only one open complaint against Respondent. Respondent’s license has never been disciplined.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
This matter lies within the ROC’s jurisdiction. See Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1101 et seq.
The burden of proof at an administrative hearing falls to the party asserting a claim, right, or entitlement and the standard of proof on all issues in these matters is by a preponderance of the evidence. See Ariz. Admin. Code R2-19-119.
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).
4. The Administrative Law Judge may consider the ROC’s administrative record. See Ariz. Admin. Code R4-9-118.
5. The preponderance of the evidence shows that Respondent did not remodel Complainant’s home in a professional and workmanlike manner, which is a violation of Ariz. Admin. Code R4-9-108(A), and thereby of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(3).
6. The preponderance of evidence shows that Respondent failed to comply with the Directive without valid justification, which is a 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 The C 5 Company Inc’s license number 291824 for five 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)(7), unless Respondent tenders payment of any outstanding prior civil penalty.
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, June 23, 2025.
/s/ Velva Moses-Thompson
Administrative Law Judge
Transmitted by either mail, e-mail, or facsimile to:
Tom Cole, Director
Registrar of Contractors
Cindy Romano
[email redacted]
The C 5 Company Inc
[email redacted]
By: OAH Staff