ALJDEC decisions subject to certification as final

2024A-13810-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2025-09-05

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

Judd Flake,

COMPLAINANT

DC Builders LLC

License No. ROC 331731,

RESPONDENT

No. 2024A-13810-CHC-ROC

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW

JUDGE DECISION

HEARING: August 6, 2025

APPEARANCES:

Complainant: Judd Flake

Respondent: No Appearance

Registrar of Contractors: Steven Avila, Investigator

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Nedra-Su Kawasaki

EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: Administrative notice was taken of the Notice of Hearing Packet submitted by the Registrar of Contractors.

_____________________________________________________________________

FINDINGS OF FACT

DC Builders LLC (Respondent) was the holder of License No. 331731 issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (Registrar) on December 21, 2020.

On or about August 22, 2022, Judd Flake (Complainant) entered into a contract with Respondent for, among other things, a remodel.

On or about December 19, 2024, Complainant filed a Licensed Complaint Form with the Registrar, claiming abandonment and poor work.

The Registrar assigned the complaint to Investigator Steven Avila, who issued a Jobsite Inspection Notice on December 24, 2024, scheduling the inspection for January 21, 2025. Due to scheduling conflicts, the inspection was rescheduled for January 23, 2025.

Investigator Avila conducted the jobsite inspection on January 23, 2025, and Respondent was present. Following the inspection, Investigator Avila issued a Written Directive From the Registrar to Respondent on January 23, 2025 that provided as follows:

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

Complaint Item: 1 - Contractor didn't install all plumbing fixtures and didn't repair the block wall they damaged correctly

Investigator’s Observation: At the time of the inspection the residence contained rough plumbing installed but no finish plumbing fixtures had been installed throughout the residence. Allegation is verified. Respondent shall correct by the appropriate means. Block wall was not inspected as the line item had tow [sic] items and we did not address the wall at the time of the inspection. However the respondent should repair any damage caused during the performance of the scope of work. An addendum inspection can be held if needed to amend directive.

Governing Rule: Violation of any rule adopted by the Registrar; Namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(b): A contractor shall perform all work in accordance with any applicable building codes and professional industry standards. For work to be performed in accordance with professional industry standards, a contractor shall use such skills, prudence, and diligence in performing and completing tasks undertaken that the completed work meets the standards of a similarly licensed contractor possessing ordinary skill and capacity. A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) - R4-9-108(B) Building Codes/Prof. Industry Standards

Complaint Item: 2 - Contractor didn't complete electrical work

Investigator’s Observation: At the time of the inspection there was exposed wiring throughout the residence. Electrical covers remained missing, ceiling fans and bathroom fixtures were missing, outdoor lighting missing, open electrical boxes with exposed wiring, Allegation for incomplete electrical work is verified. Respondent shall correct by the appropriate means. Verbiage of contract states up to 24 can lights but does not specify and number. Contract also states repair inside the electrical box but does not state replace box specifically. Should it be determined that the exterior conduit and electrical box do need repaired this would be added to the directive however it would be the local permitting department who would determine these items via inspection.

Complaint Item: 3 - Contractor didn't complete framing and drywall

Investigator’s Observation: Drywall between the two bathrooms was removed for repairs and not replaced. Allegation is verified. Respondent shall correct by the appropriate means.

Complaint Item: 5 - Contractor didn't install new roof

Investigator’s Observation: At the time of the inspection the old roofing system remained and no new roof installed. Allegation is verified. Respondent shall correct by the appropriate means.

Complaint Item: 6 - Contractor did not complete flooring

Investigator’s Observation: At the time of the inspection no flooring was installed in the residence. Allegation is verified. Respondent shall correct by the appropriate means.

Complaint Item: 7 - Contractor didn't paint anything

Investigator’s Observation: Residence was primed at the time of the inspection but had not been painted. Allegation is verified respondent shall correct by the appropriate means.

Complaint Item: 8 - Contractor didn't install doors

Investigator’s Observation: At the time of the inspection there were two. exterior doors that had not been installed. There were four other interior doors that were onsite but not installed. No closet doors installed in the residence. Allegation is verified. Respondent shall correct by the appropriate means.

Complaint Item: 9 - Contractor didn't install lighting

Investigator’s Observation: This line item was partially addressed in previous allegation #2. Bathroom lighting, ceiling fans and exterior lights not installed. Allegation is verified. Respondent shall correct by the appropriate means.

Complaint Item: 10 - Contractor didn't install new cabinets or countertops

Investigator’s Observation: At the time of the inspection no cabinets or countertops were installed in the residence. Allegation is verified. Respondent shall correct by the appropriate means.

Complaint Item: 11 - Contractor didn't complete bathrooms and didn't install correct material

Investigator’s Observation: Most items regarding completion of bathrooms were address individually in previous line items. Bathrooms did not contain. flooring, baseboards, cabinets, counters, lighting, exhaust fans or plumbing fixtures. One shower was tile to 74" high whilst the other was tiled to ceiling. The shower containing the exposed wall appeared unfinished in comparison to the second. No explanation was given for the incomplete tile and unfinished look and this should be remedied by the respondent. Allegation is verified. Respondent shall correct by the appropriate means.

Complaint Item: 12 - Contractor didn't remove all trash and debris

Investigator’s Observation: At the time of the inspection there was debris remaining at the residence. Allegation is verified. Respondent shall correct by the appropriate means.

Complaint Item: 13 - Contractor didn't complete all fixtures and hardware for house to be move in ready

Investigator’s Observation: Residence missing all finish fixtures throughout. Allegation is verified. Respondent shall correct by the appropriate means.

The Written Directive required Respondent to notify Investigator Avila of Respondent’s compliance with the directive prior to 5:00 p.m. on February 13, 2025.

On or about February 13, 2025, Complainant informed Investigator Avila that no corrective work had been performed on the project.

On April 1, 2025, Investigator Avila issued a Compliance Inspection Notice, setting the inspection for April 10, 2025. During the inspection, all compliance items were deemed not completed.

On April 29, 2025, the Registrar issued a Citation against Respondent, finding cause to charge Respondent with violations of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(1); A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(B); and A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22).

Respondent submitted an Answer to the Citation on May 13, 2025. Respondent’s Answer stated it agreed to complete the work and intended to do so before the scheduled hearing.

The Registrar referred the matter to the Office of Administrative Hearings, an independent state agency, for an evidentiary hearing.

On June 4, 2025, the Registrar issued a Notice of Hearing on Contested Case setting the hearing for July 15, 2025.

On July 15, 2025, Respondent and Investigator Avila appeared at the hearing. Complainant did not appear within 15 minutes of the scheduled hearing time. However, Complainant did contact the Office of Administrative Hearings that same day advising he did not have the information required to connect to the hearing.

On or about July 22, 2025, the parties were notified the hearing was continued to August 6, 2025. The order granting the continuance from the Office of Administrative Hearings advised the parties of how to connect to the hearing via Google Meet.

The hearing was held via Google Meet on August 6, 2025.

Respondent did not request that the hearing be further continued. Although the start of the hearing was delayed 15 minutes, Respondent did not appear through an authorized member, employee, or attorney. Consequently, Respondent did not present any evidence to defend its license.

Investigator Avila testified in support of his jobsite and compliance inspection findings, the written directive, and the Citation. Investigator Avila stated the findings were “straightforward” and no work was completed after the written directive was issued.

Complainant testified that he had multiple projects with Respondent at the same time. The contract and invoices submitted in the Notice of Hearing packet were from a separate project (Ashland), but the complaint, jobsite inspection notes, the written directive, compliance inspection, and Citation were all accurate and relative to the project at issue (Allen). Specifically, the photographs from the jobsite inspection were of the 510 S. Allen address. Complainant further testified in support of his complaint items as provided.

Respondent failed to appear at the Hearing. Respondent’s Answer asserted that Respondent met with Complainant on May 6, 2025 to go over the Citation and “other citations filed by [Complainant].” Respondent stated it was agreed that Respondent would complete the work at [Allen] and “the others listed on the other citations” and it was Respondent’s intent to have all the items finished before the day of the hearing.

Administrative notice was taken of Respondent’s prior License record on August 6, 2025. According to that record, Respondent’s License No. 331731 was revoked in March 2025; and there was one open complaint (instant matter), three disciplined case, and two resolved/settled complaints against Respondent’s license.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

Respondent was deemed to have received the Notice of Hearing by methods reasonably calculated to effect notice. The Registrar mailed copies of the Notice of Hearing on Contested Case to its address and email address of record, and the Office of Administrative Hearings sent the order setting the continued hearing date to Respondent at its email address of record. Additionally, Respondent appeared at the initially scheduled hearing, was advised at that time it may be continued, and notice was sent to the same address at which Respondent received and responded to prior notice.

This matter lies within the Registrar’s jurisdiction.

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

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.”

Abandonment means to give up on, withdraw from, or cease or surrender involvement in the project and contract. A Respondent’s actions, or inaction, must be so severe, that a reasonable person could infer Respondent’s intent to abandon the project, incurring the consequences of that abandonment. Mere untimeliness or inefficiency does not amount to abandonment.

The preponderance of the evidence established that Respondent abandoned the project or refused to perform work without a legal excuse in violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(1).

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 take appropriate corrective action following a written directive from the Registrar in violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22).

“The registrar may impose a civil penalty of not to exceed $500 on a contractor for each violation of subsection A, paragraph 22 of this section.” If a licensee fails to pay the civil penalty, their license is automatically revoked “thirty days after the effective date of the order providing for the civil penalty.” Additionally, any “person who is or was named on a license . . . may not receive a new license under this chapter until the entire civil penalty is paid.”

In the instant case, of the 14 complaint items filed with the Registrar, 12 were substantiated/verified. Respondent was present at the jobsite inspection when the items were substantiated and subsequently received the written directive with the compliance deadline of February 13, 2025. No corrective work was attempted during the compliance period, nor did Respondent appear at the compliance inspection. Although Respondent asserted its intention to correct the complaint items, this communication was received only after the Citation was issued. No actual attempt was made to comply with the written directive.

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Based on the foregoing, it is recommended that on the effective date of the Order, the Registrar shall revoke Respondent’s License No. 331731.

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).

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.

-54864001

001

-137160-45720000Done this day, September 5, 2025.

/s/ Nedra-Su Kawasaki

Administrative Law Judge

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

Tom Cole, Director

Registrar of Contractors

[email redacted]

DC Builders LLC

[email redacted]

Judd Flake

[email redacted]

Steven Avila

Registrar of Contractors

[email redacted]

By: OAH Staff