ALJDEC - Licensing
2025A-00621-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2025-06-09
IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
Guillermo Garibay
COMPLAINANT,
v.
JM Pro Builders LLC
License No. ROC 338383,
RESPONDENT.
No. 2025A-00621-CHC-ROC
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION
HEARING: June 2, 2025
APPEARANCES: Guillermo Garibay (hereinafter “Complainant”) appeared on behalf of himself. No one appeared on behalf of JM Pro Builders LLC (hereinafter “Respondent”).
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Velva Moses-Thompson
_____________________________________________________________________
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. On or about February 8, 2024, Complainant and Respondent entered into a contract, wherein Respondent would remodel Complainant’s home for the amount of $50,000.00. Complainant paid Respondent $46,500.00 pursuant to the contract.
2. Respondent did not provide Complainant with a written contract that advised Complainant of his right to file a complaint with the Registrar against Respondent for an alleged violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. section 32-1154(A).
3. On or about February 8, 2024, Complainant started work.
4. On or about November 27, 2024, Complainant stopped work.
5. On or about January 27, 2025, Complainant filed a complaint with the Arizona Registrar of Contractors, (hereinafter “Registrar” of “ROC”), alleging poor workmanship on the part of Respondent.
6. The Registrar assigned the complaint to one of its investigators, Ruben Perez Jr., (hereinafter “Investigator Perez”).
7. On February 12, 2025, Investigator Perez conducted a job-site inspection.
8. On February 14, 2025, the Registrar issued a Directive to Respondent that provided, in relevant part, 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 5, 2025.
RESTRICTIONS
• You may not perform or hire other contractors to perform work that is outside
the scope of your license.
• If your license is currently suspended for administrative reasons1, or is inactive,
expired, or cancelled, you may not perform any corrective work nor contract in
any manner, which includes hiring other contractors to perform work, until the
suspension of your license(s) has been lifted or your license(s) has been
reactivated.
Complaint Item 1: Wood paneling is missing nails throughout
Investigator’s Observation: Ceiling in front portico was observed with plywood
panels missing nails throughout. Respondent reported he was not done with project and will finish job. Respondent to correct by appropriate means.
Governing Rule: Workmanship Rule: ARS 32-1154(A) (3) specifically to Rule 4- -108.
Complaint Item 2: Motor for the driveway gate was never delivered or installed
Investigator’s Observation: Front gate was observed installed however, sliding gate opener (motor) was missing. Respondent reported he was not done with project and will finish job. Respondent to correct by appropriate means.
Governing Rule: Workmanship Rule: ARS 32-1154(A) (3) specifically to Rule 4-9-108
Complaint Item 3: Stucco needs to be finished around front door and side of the
House Investigator’s Observation: Stucco above front door was observed unfinished. Top left corner of front portico (at roof) was observed missing stucco (wire exposed). Respondent reported he was not done with project and will finish job. Respondent to correct by appropriate means.
Governing Rule: Workmanship Rule: ARS 32-1154(A) (3) specifically to Rule 4-9-108
Complaint Item 4: Loose electrical boxes
Investigator’s Observation: Electrical box in front portico (at decorative rock) was observed unsecured. Electrical box below electrical panel on East side of residence was observed unsecured. Respondent reported he was not done with project and will finish job. Respondent to correct by appropriate means.
Governing Rule: Workmanship Rule: ARS 32-1154(A) (3) specifically to Rule 4-9-108
Complaint Item 6: Missing palm trees
Investigator’s Observation: Both parties reported three trees were included with front landscaping and were missing. Trees were not observed at jobsite. Respondent reported he was not done with project and will finish job. Respondent to correct by appropriate means.
Governing Rule: Workmanship Rule: ARS 32-1154(A) (3) specifically to Rule 4-9-108
Complaint Item 7: Missing lights for concrete steps
Investigator’s Observation: Step lights were not observed at jobsite. Respondent reported he was not done with project and will finish job. Respondent to correct by appropriate means.
Governing Rule: Workmanship Rule: ARS 32-1154(A) (3) specifically to Rule 4-9-108
Complaint Item 8: Seam is poorly done on the third concrete step
Investigator’s Observation: Top step was observed with unsightly concrete finish at drop down. Respondent reported he was not done with project and will finish job. Respondent to correct by appropriate means.
Governing Rule: Workmanship Rule: ARS 32-1154(A) (3) specifically to Rule 4-9-108
Complaint Item 13: Front brick wall is covered with spray paint because they did not properly cover the wall
Investigator’s Observation: Several front block pillars were observed with black
Respondent to correct by appropriate means.
Governing Rule: Workmanship Rule: ARS 32-1154(A) (3) specifically to Rule 4-9-108
Complaint Item 14: Interior wall around door is unfinished
Investigator’s Observation: Drywall (interior) above front door was observed
unfinished. Respondent reported he was not done with project and will finish job.
Respondent to correct by appropriate means.
Governing Rule: Workmanship Rule: ARS 32-1154(A) (3) specifically to Rule 4-9-108
Complaint Item 16: House address number plate was delivered but not installed. Light for it was delivered but wiring is incomplete
Investigator’s Observation: House address plaque was observed not installed.
Respondent reported he was not done with project and will finish job. Respondent to correct by appropriate means.
Governing Rule: Workmanship Rule: ARS 32-1154(A) (3) specifically to Rule 4-9-108
Complaint Item 17: One of the bricks on the landscaping is not secured
Investigator’s Observation: One brick cap was observed unsecured in front
landscaping (near single gate). Respondent reported he was not done with project and will finish job. Respondent to correct by appropriate means.
Governing Rule: Workmanship Rule: ARS 32-1154(A) (3) specifically to Rule 4-9-108
Complaint Item 18: Roof shingles have paint overspray
Investigator’s Observation: Shingles on roof extension (behind garage) were
observed with excess gunk and/or paint on them. Respondent reported he was not done with project and will finish job. Respondent to correct by appropriate means.
Governing Rule: Workmanship Rule: ARS 32-1154(A) (3) specifically to Rule 4-9-108
Complaint Item 20: Roof is not properly sealed where stone wall decoration was
installed.
Investigator’s Observation: East side of decorative rock section above roof was observed unfinished (plywood exposed). Respondent reported he was not done with project and will finish job. Respondent to correct by appropriate means.
Governing Rule: Workmanship Rule: ARS 32-1154(A) (3) specifically to Rule 4-9-108
Complaint Item 22: Drip irrigation system for trees was not installed
Investigator’s Observation: Sections of the irrigation system was observed installed and others missing. Respondent reported he was not done with project and will finish job. Respondent to correct by appropriate means.
Governing Rule: Workmanship Rule: ARS 32-1154(A) (3) specifically to Rule 4
9-108
Complaint Item 23: Stains were left throughout the worksite and had to be cleaned by the homeowner. Some stains could not be removed.
Investigator’s Observation: Front portico concrete was observed with some stains. Respondent reported he was not done with project and will finish and clean job site. Respondent to correct by appropriate means.
Governing Rule: Workmanship Rule: ARS 32-1154(A) (3) specifically to Rule 4-9-108
.........................................
9. Investigator Perez extended the due date to make corrections pursuant to the Directive to March 20, 2025.
10. On March 27, 2025, Investigator Perez conducted a compliance job-site inspection and found that Respondent correctly repaired complaint items 4, 6, 17, and 18. Investigator Perez found that Respondent failed to appropriately correct complaint items 1, 2, 3, 7, 8, 13, 14, 16, 20, 22, and 23.
11. Investigator Perez referred the complaint to the ROC’s legal department for the issuance of a Citation.
12. On April 3, 2025, the ROC issued a Citation against Respondent’s license alleging that Respondent violated Ariz. Rev. Stat. sections 32-1154(A)(3), (12) and (22); Arizona Administrative Code (hereinafter “A.A.C.”) R4-9-108(B) and Ariz. Rev. Stat. section 32-1158.
13. Respondent filed a timely answer to the Citation.
14. The matter was referred to the Office of Administrative Hearings for an evidentiary hearing.
15. On or about April 28, 2025, the ROC issued a Notice of Hearing, setting a hearing at 9:00 a.m. on June 2, 2025. The Registrar mailed a copy of the Notice of Hearing to Respondent at its address of record. The Registrar mailed a copy of the Notice of Hearing to Respondent at its email address of record.
16. A hearing was held on June 2, 2025.
17. At hearing, Complainant testified on behalf of himself. Investigator Perez testified consistently with his job-site inspection and compliance inspection notes. 18. No one appeared on behalf of Respondent at the hearing. Respondent did not file a motion for continuance. Respondent did not appear through an authorized member, employee, or attorney. Consequently, Respondent did not present any evidence to defend its license.
19. Complainant stated at hearing that he agreed with the findings of Investigator Perez. Complainant explained at hearing that Respondent failed to come to his home several times to perform work.
20. Administrative notice is taken of Respondent’s prior License record on June 9, 2025. Such prior License record reflects that Respondent’s License No. 338383 was first issued on May 24, 2022, and is active. Such prior License record also reflects that there are two open complaints against Respondent’s license. Such prior License record also reflects that the Registrar has not imposed discipline on Respondent’s license.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
This matter lies within the Registrar’s jurisdiction. See Ariz. Rev. Stat. section 32-1101 et seq.
The copy of the Notice of Hearing that the Registrar mailed to Respondent at its address of record was reasonable and Respondent is deemed to have received notice of the hearing. Ariz. Rev. Stat. sections 41-1092.04 and 41-1092.05(D).
The Administrative Law Judge may consider the ROC’s administrative
record. See A.A.C. R4-9-118.
Complainant bears the burden of proof to establish Respondent’s statutory violations by a preponderance of the evidence. See Ariz. Rev. Stat. section 41-1092.07(G)(2); A.A.C. R2-19-119(A) and A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1); see also Vazanno v. Superior Court, 74 Ariz. 369, 372, 249 P.2d 837 (1952). “A preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.” Morris K. Udall, Arizona Law of Evidence § 5 (1960).
The preponderance of the evidence shows that Respondent did not perform
the work in accordance with professional industry standards, which is a violation of A.A.C. R4-9-108(B), and thereby of Ariz. Rev. Stat. section 32-1154(A)(3).
The undisputed evidence established that Respondent’s contract did not
include a statement that the property owner has the right to file a written complaint with the Registrar for alleged violations of Ariz. Rev. Stat. section 32-1154(A), which is a violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. section 32-1154(A)(12) and Ariz. Rev. Stat. section 32-1158.
The preponderance of the evidence shows that Respondent failed to
comply with the Registrar’s Directive without valid justification, which is a violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. section 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 License No. 338383, issued to JM Pro Builders LLC for three days. It is further recommended that the Registrar require Respondent to pay the sum of $500.00 as a civil penalty pursuant to Ariz. Rev. Stat. section 32-1154(E).
It is further recommended that if Respondent fails to pay the entire amount of the civil penalty on or before thirty 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 Ariz. Rev. Stat. section 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, June 9, 2025.
/s/ Velva Moses-Thompson
Administrative Law Judge
Transmitted by either mail, e-mail, or facsimile to:
Tom Cole, Director
Registrar of Contractors
JM Pro Builders LLC
[email redacted]
Guillermo Garibay
[email redacted]
By: OAH Staff