ALJDEC - Licensing
2025A-00662-NPC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2025-05-16
IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
DLM Excavation & Construction Inc,
COMPLAINANT
v.
Sun Valley Pools AZ LLC
License No. ROC 302168,
RESPONDENT
No. 2025A-00662-NPC-ROC
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION
HEARING: May 1, 2025
APPEARANCES: Gina Matzdorff appeared via Google Meet on behalf of Complainant DLM Excavation & Construction Inc. Lionel Arnboult appeared via Google Meet on behalf of Respondent Sun Valley Pools AZ LLC.
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Adam D. Stone
EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE:
_____________________________________________________________________
FINDINGS OF FACT
On March 19, 2025, the Registrar of Contractors (“ROC”) issued a Notice of Hearing on Contested Case setting the above-captioned matter for hearing on May 1, 2025, at the Office of Administrative Hearings.
The Notice of Hearing shows that the hearing was being conducted on the charges made in the complaint and citation that were served on Respondent Sun Valley Pools on March 7, 2025.
Through the citation and Notice of Hearing, ROC alleges that Respondent may have violated Ariz. Rev. Stat. section 32-1154(A)(10).
Respondent holds License No. 302168 issued by ROC. Lionel Arnoult is Respondent’s qualifying party and a member in the corporation.
Complainant is DLM Excavation & Construction Inc. and provided excavation services for swimming pool contractors.
On January 20, 2025, Complainant filed with ROC a complaint against Respondent alleging that Respondent owed Complainant $9,957.00.
The hearing convened on May 1, 2025.
Ms. Matzdorff testified that in the past she had done work with Respondent. Ms. Matzdorff also testified that on May 3, 2024, she received an email communication that Respondent and Big Daddy Construction (hereinafter “Big Daddy”) “have joined forces under new ownership. This merger will be a great thing for both entities and all previous principals will continue to be involved with the daily management...”
Ms. Matzdorff also testified that on or about September 19, 2024, she received an email from Jamie Hanna at Big Daddy Construction, about a job at the Bolin residence and the McCall residence.
Further, Ms. Matzdorff testified that the work was completed and that she invoiced the Bolin job on October 21, 2024 in the amount of $4,607.00, and the McCall job on October 22, 2024 on $5,350.00.
Ms. Matzdorff also testified that on January 13, 2025, the Bolin invoice was paid in full and now was only seeking to collect on the McCall job in the amount of $5,350.00.
Mr. Arnoult testified that Respondent and Big Daddy were two separate entities with separate licensees and that the McCall project was not Respondent’s, but rather, Big Daddy’s. Therefore, he argued that Respondent did not owe on the McCall invoice.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Unless otherwise provided by law, a party asserting a claim, right, or entitlement bears the burden of proof; a party asserting an affirmative defense has the burden of establishing the affirmative defense. The standard of proof on all issues in this matter is that of a preponderance of the evidence. Ariz. Admin. Code § R2-19-119.
“At a hearing on an agency action to suspend, revoke, terminate or modify on its own initiative material conditions of a license or permit, the agency has the burden of persuasion.” Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 41-1092.07(G)(2).
A preponderance of the evidence is:
The greater weight of the evidence, not necessarily established by the greater number of witnesses testifying to a fact but by evidence that has the most convincing force; superior evidentiary weight that, though not sufficient to free the mind wholly from all reasonable doubt, is still sufficient to incline a fair and impartial mind to one side of the issue rather than the other.
Black’s Law Dictionary 1373 (10th ed. 2014).
Statutes should be interpreted to provide a fair and sensible result. Gutierrez v. Industrial Commission of Arizona, 226 Ariz. 395, 249 P.3d 1095 (2011)(citation omitted); State v. McFall, 103 Ariz. 234, 238, 439 P.2d 805, 809 (1968) ("Courts will not place an absurd and unreasonable construction on statutes.").
“Statutes shall be liberally construed to effect their objects and to promote justice.” Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 1-211(B).
The purpose of the Registrar’s licensing statutes is to protect the public from unscrupulous, unqualified, and financially irresponsible contractors. See Aesthetic Property Maintenance v. Capital Indem. Corp., 183 Ariz. 74, 900 P. 2d 1210 (1995).
Among the grounds for suspension or revocation of a contractor’s license is a “[f]ailure by [the] licensee . . . to pay monies in excess of seven hundred fifty dollars when due for materials or services rendered in connection with the licensee’s operations as a contractor when the licensee has the capacity to pay or, if the licensee lacks the capacity to pay, when the licensee has received sufficient monies as payment for the particular construction work project or operation for which the services or materials were rendered or purchased.” Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(10).
The preponderance of the evidence does not demonstrate that Respondent was responsible for the McCall invoice. Admittedly, while the email communication in May from Big Daddy could have cause confusion for Complainant, as well as Respondent paying on the Bolin job, it was clear that the directive to commence the construction came from Big Daddy, and thus it was the responsible party. Further, if there was any confusion by Ms. Matzgraff, she could have inquired about the same prior to commencing the work.
Therefore, the preponderance of the evidence shows that Respondent has not violated section 32-1154(A)(10).
RECOMMENDED ORDER
IT IS RECOMMENDED that ROC dismiss the complaint against Sun Valley Pools AZ LLC.
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, May 16, 2025.
/s/ Adam D. Stone
Administrative Law Judge
Transmitted by either mail, e-mail, or facsimile to:
Tom Cole, Director
Registrar of Contractors
DLM Excavation & Construction Inc
[email redacted]
Sun Valley Pools AZ LLC
[email redacted]
By: OAH Staff