ALJDEC - Licensing

2025A-00541-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2025-07-18

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

Julie Holm,

COMPLAINANT,

v.

Superb Elements Stone, LLC,

License No. ROC 351770,

RESPONDENT.

No. 2025A-00541-CHC-ROC

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION

HEARING: July 3, 2025

APPEARANCES: Complainant Julie Holm appeared on her own behalf with her husband, John Holm. Respondent Superb Elements Stone, LLC did not appear. Arizona Registrar of Contractors Investigator Charles Riddlehoover appeared as a witness.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Sondra J. Vanella

EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: Complainant Julie Holm’s Exhibits 1-4; Administrative Notice taken of Agency Record

FINDINGS OF FACT

Superb Elements Stone, LLC (“Respondent”) is the holder of License Number 351770 issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (“Registrar”).

On or about July 17, 2024, Julie Holm (“Complainant”) contracted with Respondent for Respondent to install cabinets and countertops in Complainant’s home. The total contract price was approximately $87,188.00.

On or about January 27, 2025, the Registrar received a Complaint against Respondent from Complainant alleging poor work with respect to the project.

The Registrar assigned the Complaint to Investigator Charles Riddlehoover. After a February 26, 2025 Jobsite Inspection, Investigator Riddlehoover issued a Written Directive to Respondent dated March 3, 2025, that provided as follows:

After investigation, the Registrar determined that you failed to meet the requirements of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A), and now issues this Directive requiring you to take appropriate corrective action. Failure to comply with this Directive constitutes a violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22) and may result in the issuance of a citation, discipline of your license, and a civil penalty pursuant to A.R.S. § 32-1154(E) of up to $500.00. You must notify the Registrar’s assigned Investigator of your compliance with this Directive prior to 5:00 p.m. on Wednesday, March 19, 2025.

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

Complaint Item: 1 -Missing/Incomplete Work in

Office,Kitchen,Pantry,Laundry,Bathroom Damaged Materials in all areas

Damage to walls, floors

Investigator’s Observation: During the Job Site Inspection portion of our

Investigation it appears that the Complainant has shown sufficient evidence to verify the allegation. It appears there is incomplete work, missing and damaged items in the office(1), kitchen (1.1), pantry(1.2), laundry room (1.3) and master bathroom (1.4).

(1)Missing cabinets/built-in bookshelf, Desk/cabinets resurfacing not completed, holes in granite not cut.

(1.1) Hood fascia missing, cabinet glass missing, missing shelves & door in corner cabinet, missing cabinet skins,/trim, back of cabinet over oven missing backing, missing spice racks on both sides of the stove, missing fillers and trim, missing shelves, damaged flooring, cabinets have not been sealed after staining, cabinets rough in texture, missing trash door, missing drawer faces, damage to cabinet doors, handles not installed, damage to walls, final adjustments on all cabinet doors and drawers not done.

(1.2)Missing cabinets, improper cabinet configuration as it does not match drawing in contract, missing wall granite, missing trim, missing shelves, missing pullouts, electrical junction box not completed, scratches on cabinet faces, nail pops, missing skins, missing handles, missing granite.

(1.3) Missing cabinet doors, missing shelves, missing skins, incomplete corner cabinets, missing trim, missing cabinet.

(1.4) Missing cabinet doors, missing skins, missing backsplash, missing trim, damage to walls and ceiling not repaired,

Respondent shall complete project per original contract agreement, properly executed change orders, verbal agreements, local building codes and manufacturers installation instructions. Respondent shall correct by the appropriate means.

Complaint Item: 2 - Office countertops not correct, missing openings for electric, seam in wrong space Office cabinets never started

Investigator’s Observation: Upon inspection of the of the office counter top it appears there is missing openings for the electrical. Unable to verify seam placement. It also appears the built-in bookshelves had not been completed as the Complainant has placed temporary shelves on the desk in the meantime.

Respondent shall correct by the appropriate means.

Complaint Item: 4 - Damaged wood material in all spaces Raw edges with safety issues Inconsistent staining and color variation

Investigator’s Observation: Upon inspection of the cabinets in the kitchen, laundry, pantry and bathroom it appears there is damaged edges due to improper cuts leaving raw and unfinished. Respondent shall correct by the appropriate means.

Complaint Item: 5 - Liner in kithen counters omitted Laundry countertop not supplied Pantry granite not finished, or returned

Investigator’s Observation: During our inspection it appeared that one or more of the cabinet back panels were missing after installation. Pantry granite backsplash is missing in the laundry room. Respondent shall correct by the appropriate means.

ITEMS NOT REQUIRING CORRECTION

The following complaint items require no action by the Respondent:

Complaint Item: 3 - Cabinets, doors, shelves, and pullouts missing in all rooms Trim work not even leaving exposed gaps Glass missing

Investigator’s Observation: This allegation is a duplicate of allegation #1 with the inclusion of trim.

Complaint Item: 6 - Timeline extended 4 times without finishing or correcting work 65% payment per contract, paid used funds for other jobs

Investigator’s Observation: The ROC does not require the project to be completed by the completion date, and only requires an estimated completion date be listed in the contract. However, if a completion date is listed in the contract, this could be a breach of contract violation, which could be pursued in a civil venue.

All errors in original.

On March 20, 2025, Investigator Riddlehoover contacted Complainant and ascertained that Respondent had not performed any corrective work. Thereafter, Investigator Riddlehoover forwarded the matter to the Registrar’s Legal Department. The Registrar issued a Citation against Respondent charging possible violations of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(a), and A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22).

Respondent filed a timely Answer to the Citation and the Registrar referred the matter to the Office of Administrative Hearings, an independent State agency, for an evidentiary hearing.

On May 14, 2025, the Registrar issued a Notice of Hearing to the parties advising of the hearing date and time of July 3, 2025, at 1:00 p.m., and further advised that an Order providing a Google Meet link would be issued to the parties by the Office of Administrative Hearings. Also on May 14, 2025, the Tribunal issued an Order Setting Hearing Via Google Meet to the parties. That Order contained the Google Meet link to join the hearing by video or by telephone. It was issued to Respondent’s email address of record.

Respondent did not appear through an authorized member, employee, or attorney. Respondent did not request that the hearing be continued. Because Respondent failed to appear, Respondent did not present any evidence to defend its license.

Investigator Riddlehoover testified consistently with his findings contained in the Written Directive. Investigator Riddlehoover also testified that upon receipt of the Complainant, he issued a Response to Allegations letter to Respondent. Respondent submitted a response indicating that there had been a denial of access to the jobsite. Investigator Riddlehoover requested that Respondent provide documentation establishing the assertion of a denial of access. Respondent did not further respond and did not submit the requested documentation.

Complainant agreed with Investigator Riddlehoover’s findings and testimony. Complainant testified that prior to filing the Complaint, she contacted Respondent in an effort to resolve the matter and Respondent did not respond.

Administrative notice is taken of Respondent’s prior License record on July 18, 2025. Such prior License record reflects that Respondent’s License Number 351770 was first issued on April 24, 2024, and is suspended. Such prior License record also reflects that there are two (2) open complaints including the instant Complaint, no resolved/settled complaints, and one (1) complaint resulting in discipline against Respondent’s license.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

This matter lies within the Registrar’s jurisdiction.

Complainant bears the burden of proof to establish Respondent’s statutory violation(s) 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.”

The evidence established that Respondent’s work was not in conformity with the Registrar’s standards. Therefore, Complainant established that Respondent did not complete the project 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 evidence established that Respondent did not complete the corrective work following the Written Directive being issued. Further, Respondent failed to establish any affirmative defense to establish valid justification for such failure. Therefore, Complainant 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).

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Based on the foregoing, it is recommended that on the effective date of the Order, the Registrar shall suspend Respondent’s License Number 351770 for a period of ten (10) days.

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).

It is further recommended that if Respondent fails to pay the entire amount of the civil penalty on or before thirty (30) 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 A.R.S. § 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, July 18, 2025.

/s/ Sondra J. Vanella

Administrative Law Judge

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

Tom Cole, Director

Registrar of Contractors

Julie Holm

[email redacted]

Superb Elements Stone, LLC

[email redacted]

Charles Riddlehoover

[email redacted]

By: OAH Staff