ALJDEC - Licensing
2025A-00129-NPC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2025-07-03
IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
A & J PRECISION CONSTRUCTION, LLC,
COMPLAINANT,
v.
Get Right Flooring, LLC
License No. ROC 346650,
RESPONDENT.
No. 2025A-00129-NPC-ROC
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION
HEARING: June 20, 2025
APPEARANCES: Julian Flores appeared on behalf of Complainant A & J Precision Construction, LLC. Respondent Get Right Flooring, LLC did not appear.
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Sondra J. Vanella
EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: None; Administrative Notice taken of Agency Record
FINDINGS OF FACT
Get Right Flooring, LLC (“Respondent”) is the holder of License Number 346650 issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (“Registrar”).
In or about January 2025, A & J Precision Construction, LLC (“Complainant”) filed a Complaint against Respondent with the Registrar alleging that Respondent had failed to pay Complainant the sum of $4,151.52 for work performed by Complainant at a jobsite located at 10057 S. Placita Tierra Linda, in Sahuarita, Arizona, including the installation of a new door and cabinets in the primary bathroom, electrical work in the kitchen and dining area, and the installation of fans in the living area.
The parties were unable to resolve their differences. The Registrar issued a Citation against Respondent for its alleged violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(10).
The hearing in this matter was scheduled to convene on April 2, 2025, at 10:30 a.m. On the date and time set for hearing, Julian Flores appeared on behalf of Complainant. Jose Cortez appeared on behalf of Respondent. The parties participated in a prehearing discussion outside of the presence of the Administrative Law Judge. Following that discussion, the parties advised the Tribunal that they had entered into a settlement agreement, however, needed additional time in which to execute the terms of the agreement. Therefore, the hearing was continued and set for a written Status Update on April 18, 2025.
On April 23, 2025, Complainant filed a Status Update requesting that the matter be reset for hearing due to Respondent not following through with the terms of the parties’ agreement. The matter was thereafter set for a continued hearing on June 12, 2025, at 3:00 p.m.
On the date and time set for continued hearing, Mr. Flores appeared on behalf of Complainant. Mr. Cortez appeared on behalf of Respondent. Prior to the commencement of the June 12, 2025 hearing, Respondent paid Complainant $500.00, which was an amount in addition to the $1,300.00 Respondent had previously paid Complainant after the initial hearing setting, for a total amount paid of $1,800.00. Mr. Cortez requested an additional week in which to pay the outstanding balance of $2,351.52 to Complainant. Due to the good faith payment of $500.00 paid by Respondent, Mr. Flores agreed to provide Respondent until June 20, 2025, to pay the remaining balance.
The hearing was continued once again to June 20, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. At that time, Mr. Flores appeared on behalf of Complainant. Mr. Cortez did not appear, and no one else appeared on behalf of Respondent despite proper notice. After a grace period, the matter proceeded to hearing.
Mr. Flores testified that Complainant performed all of the work it was contracted to perform and Respondent failed to may Complainant for its work.
Mr. Flores testified that the amount remaining due and owing to Complainant from Respondent, after deducting the $1,800.00 Respondent paid, is $2,351.52.
At no point has Respondent disputed the amount due and owing to Complainant.
Respondent failed to appear for the June 20, 2025 continued hearing, and therefore, did not present any controverting evidence.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
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 this matter is 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.
The evidence established that at the time of the June 20, 2025 continued hearing, Respondent owed a total of $2,351.52 for the work performed by Complainant.
Respondent failed to appear, and as such, failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that it lacked the ability to pay Complainant for its work.
Therefore, Complainant established that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(10) by failing to pay Complainant $2,351.52 for services or materials rendered in connection with Respondent’s contracting business.
Based upon Respondent’s violation of the provisions of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(10), grounds exist to impose discipline against Respondent’s license.
RECOMMENDed order
Based on the foregoing, it is recommended that the Registrar suspend Respondent’s License Number 346650 issued by the Registrar until it has provided to the Registrar, and the Registrar has accepted, documents that establish that it has paid Complainant $2,351.52 in certified funds.
It is further recommended that when and if the Registrar receives and accepts Respondent’s evidence that it has paid Complainant $2,351.52 in certified funds, the Registrar may close the Complaint in Case Number 2025-00129.
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, July 3, 2025.
/s/ Sondra J. Vanella
Administrative Law Judge
Transmitted by either mail, e-mail, or facsimile to:
Tom Cole, Director
Registrar of Contractors
Get Right Flooring, LLC
[email redacted]
A & J PRECISION CONSTRUCTION, LLC
[email redacted]
By: OAH Staff