ALJDEC - Licensing
2024A-14078-NPC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2025-04-29
IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
JMC Framing LLC dba JMC Framing,
COMPLAINANT,
v.
PATRIOT FRAMING LLC,
License No. ROC 335272,
RESPONDENT.
No. 2024A-14078-NPC-ROC
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION
HEARING: April 4, 2025.
APPEARANCES: Attorney Jeffrey L Laskin represented JMC Framing LLC dba JMC Framing and Juan Manuel Cuevas, Qualifying Party of JMC Framing LLC. No person appeared on behalf of Patriot Framing LLC.
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Kay Abramsohn
EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: ROC Notice of Hearing Packet (Packet); Complainant Exhibits 1 through 20.
_____________________________________________________________________
FINDINGS OF FACT
Patriot Framing LLC (Respondent) is the holder of License No. 335272 issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (Registrar or ROC) on October 27, 2021.
On or about September 28, 2022, the parties entered into a subcontractor’s agreement, for Complainant to work as a subcontractor to Respondent.
Complainant performed work at the Springs at Stadium Village (Springs) apartment complex project in Surprise, Arizona. Complainant performed framing work in the Springs apartment buildings 1 through 8, the Clubhouse, and the maintenance garage(s).
On or about December 30, 2024, Complainant filed a Non-Payment Complaint Form with the Registrar, claiming Respondent had failed to pay Complainant on submitted invoices, in an amount totaling $147,651.01.
The Registrar issued a Citation on February 4, 20025, alleging Respondent violated Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) § 32-1154(A)(10).
Respondent filed an Answer on or about February 15, 2025 and then supplemented the information as requested by ROC.
The Notice of Hearing was issued by the ROC on March 5, 2025 setting the hearing for April 4, 2025 at 3:00 p.m.
The matter was referred to the Office of Administrative Hearings (Tribunal) for an administrative hearing and on March 12, 2025, the Tribunal issued an Order for a virtual hearing session, which Order was sent to the email addresses of record, as had been provided by ROC for both parties.
At the time scheduled for the administrative hearing to convene on April 4, 2025, Respondent failed to appear. No person on behalf of Respondent appeared. The hearing was delayed until 3:15 p.m. and then proceeded in Respondent’s absence. Since that day and time, Respondent has not contacted the Office of Administrative Hearings regarding the matter.
Complainant’s sole member, Juan Manuel Cuevas, provided credible sworn testimony regarding the work Complainant performed, and in support of the documented several change orders prepared and approved by Respondent, the Complainant’s invoices, and the payments that were acknowledged to have been made by Respondent for work performed by Complainant. Mr. Cuevas testified that Complainant’s work had been completed in March of 2024 with the exception of some minor warranty work in April 2024.
At hearing, Mr. Cuevas testified that, after his review in the documents, the “revised” amount he is owed is $150,880.64.
JMC did not file an amended Complaint.
Mr. Cuevas discovered shortly before the hearing that Respondent had, in fact, been paid on the project, and that Respondent had released its lien in October 2024.
Due to the failure to appear, Respondent failed to provide any evidence.
Administrative notice was taken of Respondent’s prior License record on April 28, 2025. According to that record, Respondent’s License No. 335272 is active and has only this instant complaint outstanding.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
This matter lies within the Registrar’s jurisdiction.
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 Tribunal sent the Order with virtual hearing information to Respondent at its email address of record.
Complainant bore the burden of proof to establish Respondent’s statutory violations by a preponderance of the evidence. Respondent bore 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.”
A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(10) includes among the grounds for suspension, revocation, or other disciplinary action against a contractor’s license,
[f]ailure by a licensee or agent or official of a licensee to pay monies in excess of $750 when due for materials or services rendered in connection with the licensee's operations as a contractor unless the licensee proves that the licensee lacks the capacity to pay and has not received sufficient monies as payment for the particular construction work project or operation for which the services or materials were rendered or purchased.
Statutes should be interpreted to provide a fair and sensible result and “be liberally construed to effect their objects and to promote justice.”
The preponderance of the evidence established that Respondent owed $147,651.01 to Complainant, which has not yet been paid, in violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(10).
Absent an amended Complaint having been filed regarding any other amount alleged to be due, Respondent would have had no notice. Therefore, Complainant’s award is limited to the amount set forth in the Complaint.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
It is recommended that the Registrar suspend Respondent’s License Number 335272 until it has provided to the Registrar, and the Registrar has accepted, documents which establish Respondent has paid Complainant $147,651.01 in certified funds.
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, April 29, 2024.
/s/ Kay Abramsohn
Administrative Law Judge
Transmitted electronically to:
Tom Cole, Director
Registrar of Contractors
Jeffrey L. Laskin, Esq.
Jeffrey L. Laskin, PC
1212 E. Osborn Rd., Ste. 2
Phoenix, AZ 85014
[email redacted]
[email redacted]
PATRIOT FRAMING LLC
310 Oak Creek Ct
Springtown, TX 76082
[email redacted]
By: OAH Staff