ALJDEC - Licensing
2024A-13722-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2025-05-20
IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
Rose L Jaquez,
COMPLAINANT,
v.
Early Bird Roofing Solutions LLC
License No. ROC 326459 and 326458
RESPONDENT.
No. 2024A-13722-CHC-ROC
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION
HEARING: April 30, 2025.
APPEARANCES:
For Complainant: Rose L. Jaquez.
For Respondent: Adrian Padilla.
For the Registrar of Contractors: Miles Crosby.
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Samuel Fox
EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: Administrative notice was taken of the Notice of Hearing Packet submitted by the Registrar of Contractors.
_____________________________________________________________________
FINDINGS OF FACT
Early Bird Roofing Solutions LLC (Respondent) was the holder of License Numbers 326459 and 326458, both issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (Registrar) on October 7, 2019.
On or about December 22, 2023, Rose L. Jaquez (Complainant) entered into a contract with Respondent for, among other things, to build a deck.
On or about December 16, 2024, Complainant filed a Licensed Complaint Form with the Registrar, claiming poor work.
The Registrar assigned the complaint to Investigator Miles Crosby, who issued a Jobsite Inspection Notice on December 30, 2025, scheduling the inspection for January 6, 2025.
Investigator Crosby conducted the jobsite inspection on January 6, 2025, and Respondent was not present. Following the inspection, Investigator Crosby issued a Written Directive From the Registrar to Respondent on January 10, 2025.
The Written Directive required Respondent to notify Investigator Crosby of Respondent’s compliance with the directive prior to 5:00 p.m. on January 31, 2025.
Respondent did not perform any corrective work.
On February 25, 2025, the Registrar issued a Citation against Respondent, finding cause to charge Respondent with violations of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3), specifically R4-9-108(A) and R4-9-108(B); A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(12), specifically A.R.S. § 32-1158; and A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(16).
Respondent submitted an Answer to the Citation on March 12, 2025, admitting to performing out of scope work, but denying the other allegations.
The Registrar referred the matter to the Office of Administrative Hearings, an independent state agency, for an evidentiary hearing.
On March 18, 2025, the Registrar issued a Notice of Hearing on Contested Case setting the hearing for April 30, 2025.
The hearing was held via Google Meet on April 30, 2025.
Investigator Crosby testified in support of his findings.
Complainant testified that Respondent convinced her to spend $3,200.00 on curbs by telling her that the curbs were necessary structural support for the deck. She testified that Respondent overcharged her and that he refused to provide receipts for materials. She testified that she learned Respondent did not have the proper license and had not gotten a permit in or around October, and she asked him to stop doing work around that time.
Respondent said he tried to settle, but Complainant didn’t want to. He testified that Complainant was more upset about the curbs than any of the other work even though they were not in the Directive.
Administrative notice was taken of Respondent’s prior License record on May 20, 2025. According to that record, Respondent’s Licenses had one open case and no disciplined or resolved cases.
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. Respondent bears the burden of proof to establish an affirmative defense by a preponderance of the evidence.
“A preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.”
Firing a contractor does not necessarily preclude a complainant from the Registrar’s process. Contractors are responsible for their work and abiding by the governing statutes and rules, and a complainant may pursue discipline for violations of those statutes rules even if they fired the contractor.
Here, Complainant fired Respondent, but she is still able to pursue the relevant violations of poor work, failure to comply with building codes and industry standards, contract defects, and contracting outside the scope of the license.
The preponderance of the evidence established that Respondent failed to perform all work in a professional and workmanlike manner in violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(A).
The preponderance of the evidence established that Respondent failed to perform all work in accordance with applicable building codes and professional industry standards in violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(B).
The preponderance of the evidence established that Respondent failed to comply with this chapter in violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(12), namely the contract requirements in A.R.S. § 32-1158.
The preponderance of the evidence established that Respondent knowingly contracted beyond the scope of its license(s) in violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(16).
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Based on the foregoing, it is recommended that on the effective date of the Order, the Registrar shall suspend for five days Respondent’s Licenses numbered 326459 and 326458.
It is further recommended that within thirty days of the effective date of the Order Respondent shall provide an amended contract to the Registrar which establishes compliance with the requirements in A.R.S. § 32-1158. If Respondent fails to comply, Respondent’s license shall be suspended until it provides a compliant contract.
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 20, 2025.
/s/ Samuel Fox
Administrative Law Judge
Transmitted by either mail, e-mail, or facsimile to:
Tom Cole, Director
Registrar of Contractors
Miles Crosby
[email redacted]
Early Bird Roofing Solutions LLC
[email redacted]
Rose L Jaquez
[email redacted]
By: OAH Staff