ALJDEC - Licensing
2025A-00879-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2025-08-02
IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
Peter Glusac,
COMPLAINANT,
v.
Masco & Sons Too, LLC
ROC License No. 333480,
RESPONDENT
No. 2025A-00879-CHC-ROC
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION
HEARING: July 23, 2025 at 1:00 PM.
APPEARANCES: Peter Glusac (“Complainant”) appeared on his own behalf. Dustin “Scooter” Mascaro appeared on behalf of Masco & Sons Too, LLC (“Respondent”). Clifford Corlett appeared on behalf of the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (“Registrar”).
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Jenna Clark.
EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: The Notice of Hearing on Contested Case (“Notice of Hearing”), including the referring agency’s attached agency file, and June 05, 2025, Minute Entry – Granting Continuance were admitted into the evidentiary record.
_____________________________________________________________________
After review of the hearing record in this matter, the undersigned Administrative Law Judge makes the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, and issues this Recommended Order to the Director of the Registrar.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Background and Procedure
Pursuant to Arizona Administrative Code (“Ariz. Admin. Code”) R4-9-117, Administrative Notice is taken of Respondent’s prior license record as reflected on the Registrar’s public website. On May 25, 2021, the Registrar issued License No. 333480 Specialty Dual CR-39 Air Conditioning and Refrigeration contracting license to Respondent. The license had been renewed through May 31, 2027. Dustin Lee Mascaro Brown is listed as the Qualifying Party and Member on the license. Respondent’s address of record for the license is 3383 Sunbeam Dr. Bullhead City, Arizona 86429. Respondent has an active $6,750.00 surety bond on the license, effective May 24, 2021. The license has not previously been disciplined by the Registrar, but had had one (1) prior complaint settled or otherwise resolved against it. Currently, the license has two (2) open complaints against it; one of which is presumed to be related to this matter.
On or about May 09, 2025, the Registrar received a narrative complaint from Complainant against Respondent’s License No. 333480 alleging abandonment of a residential HVAC installation project. The Registrar designated it Complaint No. 2025-00879 and assigned to Cliff Corlett (“Investigator Corlett”) for investigation.
On February 06, 2025, Investigator Corlett issued a Jobsite Inspection Notification Letter to the parties, advising that he would conduct an inspection of the project on February 18, 2025, at 1:30 p.m. Correspondence was not returned as undeliverable to Respondent.
Respondent did not provide a written response to the underlying complaint, or request to inspect the work complained of therin.
On February 18, 2025, Investigator Corlett inspected the work that had been performed on the project to date. Respondent was not present. Investigator Corlett also reviewed the contract-related correspondence between the parties. When he was finished, Investigator Corlett drafted his Inspection Notes. Ultimately, Investigator Corlett derived six (6) separate and distinct complaint items from Complaint No. 2025-00879, two (2) of which he was able to substantiate based on his firsthand observations. Specifically, Investigator Corlett determined Respondent’s workmanship on complaint items 4 and 5 failed to meet the Registrar’s minimum workmanship standards in violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(1). Although Investigator Corlett also determined that Respondent was in violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. §§ 32-1154(A)(12); 32-1158(A) for failing to provide Complainant with a written contract for the underlying project, he did not issue a Warning Letter to Respondent or require Respondent to provide the Registrar with a copy of a contract template that included all nine (9) statutorily required elements.
On March 03, 2025, Investigator Corlett issued a Written Directive from the Registrar (“Directive”) to Respondent because he substantiated some of Complainant’s complaint allegation(s) against Respondent. Respondent was put on notice that it had until 5:00 p.m. on March 18, 2025, to notify the Registrar of its compliance with the Directive or face discipline pursuant to Ariz. Rev. Stat. §§ 32-1154(A) and 32-1154(E). Correspondence was not returned as undeliverable to Respondent.
On April 17, 2025, Investigator Corlett drafted Compliance Notes whereby he noted that Respondent failed to comply with the Directive. Specifically, Investigator Corlett noted the following, in pertinent part:
On March 3, 2025 the Registrar of Contractors issued a Written Directive to Masco & Sons Too, LLC to properly provide and install the two contracted HVAC units at the Complainants 2575 Camino Del Rio Bullhead City property, or otherwise resolve the problem as a finacial [sic] settlement was mentioned as a possible solution. That directive had a compliance due date of March 18, 2025.
As of 3/20/2025 and again on 4/11/2025 the Complainant contacted the ROC to state that no work had been performed nor any other resolution had been reached. Complainant requested the matter proceed to Administrative Hearing.
(All errors in original.)
On April 17, 2025, Investigator Corlett forwarded the matter to the Registrar’s legal department with the issuance of a Citation Recommendation.
On April 22, 2025, the Registrar issued a Citation to Respondent for alleged violations of Ariz. Rev. Stat. §§ 32-1154(A)(1) and 32-1154(A)(22). Respondent was given until May 06, 2025, to respond with its Answer or face discipline pursuant to Ariz. Rev. Stat. §§ 32-1154(A)(22) and 32-1155. Correspondence was not returned as undeliverable to Respondent.
On May 05, 2025, the Registrar received a timely Answer on behalf Respondent from Mr. Mascaro. Mr. Mascaro offered the following mildly coherent information to the Registrar, in pertinent parts:
I have been Working for [Complainant] approximately since 2022. January 2024 and he purchased (2) 5 Ton Straight cool units with labor and Crane Fees associated. In February 2024 His house caught on fire. We have tried to Schedule the units to be set a few times however the crane fees were to expensive due to having to get the roads shut down from the city and the power company to come out and De-energize the lines to get the crane over the power lines.
[I] have told [Complainant] he is more than welcome to come get the units he purchased. No labor, Equipment only.
[Complainant] asked me to install the units but I do not feel comfortable working for him on his home.
(All errors in original.)
On or about May 07, 2025, the Registrar referred this matter to the Office of Administrative Hearings (“OAH”), an independent state agency, for an evidentiary hearing on July 01, 2025. Per the May 16, 2025, Notice of Hearing the issues to be determined are whether the Registrar has cause to discipline Respondent’s license based on the following alleged statutory violations:
Charge 1: A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(1)
Charge 2: A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22)
Hearing Evidence
Complainant testified on his own behalf and called Investigator Corlett as a witness. Mr. Mascaro testified on behalf of Respondent. The substantive evidence of record is as follows:
Complainant owns residential property located at 2575 Camino Del Rio Bullhead City, Arizona 86442.
On or about August 01, 2023, Complainant hired Respondent to perform repairs to his heating unit. Respondent charged Complainant $1,625.00. Respondent made a number of repairs to the unit through February 08, 2024.
On or about January 16, 2024, the parties entered into an oral agreement for Respondent to install two new (2) HVAC units totaling $7,500.00 in Complainant’s residence.
On February 09, 2024, after Respondent finished performing repairs on the heating unit, it caught fire; causing Complainant’s home to sustain serious damage.
During the length of time it took Complainant’s homeowner’s insurance to coordinate remediation of the fire damage, the return window for the HVAC units closed.
From March 2024 to May 2024 Complainant attempted to retrieve his HVAC units from Respondent to no avail. Initially, Respondent agreed to deliver them, but made a number of excuses for why delivery could not occur. Later, Respondent claimed delivery was not possible.
On or about December 04, 2024, Complainant again asked Respondent if he could retrieve his HVAC units from its shop. Mr. Mascaro denied the request because he did not want Complainant’s trades to move any of his property, as the units were “buried” in the back of the shop. Per Mr. Mascaro, he was “too busy” to move the units to an accessible location until December 10, 2024, but still refused to deliver them to Complainant unless Complaint No. 2025-00879 was closed.
Respondent never installed the HVAC units, delivered the units to the project site, or refunded the $7,500.00 Complainant paid Respondent to purchase the units.
Respondent’s license was active and in good standing with the Registrar between March 03, 2025, and March 18, 2025.
Respondent did not schedule or perform any corrective work on substantiated complaint items 4 and/or 5 during the Directive’s compliance period. Respondent did not request an extension of the Directive’s compliance period prior to March 18, 2025, allege a denial of access to the project site by that date, or enter into a settlement agreement with Complainant.
Additional Evidence
On an unknown date, Complainant hired another contractor to install HVAC units on his premises with a crane for $450.00. The project did not require the local municipality to shut down roads or the utility company to shut off power.
Although Mr. Mascaro received the Jobsite Inspection Notice from the Registrar, he did not attend or request that the meeting be rescheduled.
Mr. Mascaro also received the Registrar’s Directive but admittedly never made any overt attempts to comply.
Closing Arguments
In closing, Respondent noted that Complainant’s HVAC units were still in Mr. Mascaro’s possession, and opined that Complainant was free to retrieve them. Respondent denied abandoning the underlying project and argued that the delay in completing the installation was due to Complainant’s house fire, and difficulties with shutting down the local roads and power grid in order for the crane to place the units on Complainant’s property.
Complainant declined to provide a closing argument.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
This matter lies within the Registrar’s jurisdiction. The matter was properly brought before OAH.
The purpose of the Registrar’s licensing statutes is to protect the public from unscrupulous, unqualified, and financially irresponsible contractors.
The Registrar may resolve contractual disputes if such resolution in ancillary to its regulatory mission and may penalize a contractor’s license by ordering payment of restitution if a proven statutory violation was not remedied by corrective action.
Complainant bears the burden of proof to establish cause for the Registrar to discipline Respondent’s license by a preponderance of the evidence. Respondent bears the burden to establish factors in mitigation of the penalty and affirmative defenses by the same evidentiary standard.
“A preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.” A preponderance of the evidence is “[t]he 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.”
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(1) provides, in pertinent part, that“[a] holder of a license may not commit abandonment of a contract or refusal to perform after submitting a bid on work without legal excuse for the abandonment or refusal.”
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(22) provides, in pertinent part, that “[a] holder of a license may not fail to take appropriate corrective action to comply with this chapter or rules adopted pursuant to this chapter without valid justification within a reasonable period of time after receiving a written directive from the registrar. The written directive shall set forth the time within which the contractor is to complete the remedial action. The time permitted for compliance shall not be less than fifteen days from the date of issuance of the directive. A license shall not be revoked or suspended nor shall any other penalty be imposed for a violation of this paragraph until after a hearing has been held. The Registrar has the authority to issue license discipline under this provision, including summary suspension, revocation, or imposing a civil penalty or recovery fund award.
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(E) provides, in pertinent parts, that the Registrar may “[i]mpose a civil penalty not to exceed five hundred dollars on a contractor for each violation. The failure by the licensee to pay any civil penalty imposed results in the automatic revocation of the license thirty days after the effective date of the order providing for the civil penalty.” It also provides that “[n]o future license may be issued to an entity consisting of a person who is associated with the contractor, unless payment of any outstanding civil penalty is tendered.”
Statutes shall be liberally construed to affect their objects and to promote justice. In interpreting a statute, “[w]e first consider the language of the statute and, if it is unclear, turn to other factors, including ‘the statute’s context, subject matter, historical background, effects, consequences, spirit, and purpose.”
Statutes should be interpreted to provide a fair and sensible result. “In applying a statute its words are to be given their ordinary meaning unless the legislature has offered its own definition of the words or it appears from the context that a special meaning was intended.”
The Tribunal is required to apply equitable principles when rendering decisions. The application of equity entails offering a remedy to avoid an unconscionable or unjust result.
The substantive facts of record in this matter are clear.
It is clear from the record that the parties had an oral agreement for Respondent to purchase two (2) HVAC units and install them. It is also clear from the record that although Respondent did purchase the units, they were not installed; initially due to reasons outside of Respondent’s control, but later because Respondent abjectly refused to do so. The record further reflects that, although Complainant asked to retrieve the units himself, Respondent refused, also refused to deliver them to Complainant, and did not issue a refund to Complainant in direct violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(1).
Therefore, the only remaining issue to address is whether Respondent raised sufficient justification or excuse for failing to comply with the Registrar’s Directive, or enter ask for an extension thereof prior to the expiration of the corrective order’s compliance period, or enter into a settlement agreement with Complainant. These are an affirmative defenses that Respondent bears the burden to establish. The Tribunal is not at liberty to make presumptions in favor of Respondent or accept facts in mitigation on behalf of Respondent that are not supported by the evidence. Here, the record reflects that Respondent failed to act in any degree and had no affirmative defense(s) for doing so. Respondent’s arguments regarding inability due to difficulty scheduling and/or paying for road closures and utility shut-offs are directly contradicted by the fact that Complainant already had the work performed for less than $500.00. Most notably, Respondent failed to articulate why the HVAC units were not delivered to Complainant, or at a bare minimum, made available for pickup prior to the expiration of the Directive’s compliance period – which is a factor in aggravation, as it evinces the licensee’s unwillingness to be regulated by the Registrar.
Because Complainant has established Respondent’s statutory violation(s) of Ariz. Rev. Stat. §§ 32-1154(A)(1) and (A)(22) by a preponderance of the evidence, Complainant has also established cause for the Registrar to discipline Respondent’s ROC License No. 333480.
Complainant may petition the Registrar’s Recovery Fund for financial recompense in this matter.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Based on the foregoing,
IT IS RECOMMENDED that five days after the effective date of the Final Order in this matter, Respondent Masco & Sons Too, LLC, ROC License No. 333480, be suspended for seven (7) days.
IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the Registrar require Respondent to pay the sum total of $500.00 (five dollars) in certified funds as a civil penalty in this matter.
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 shall revoke Respondent’s General Residential B contracting license, ROC License No. 201430, 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. § 32-1101(A)(5), unless Respondent tenders payment of any outstanding prior civil penalty.
NOTICE
Pursuant to Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 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, August 04, 2025.
Office of Administrative Hearings
/s/ Jenna Clark
Administrative Law Judge
Transmitted electronically to:
Tom Cole, Director
c/o Legal Department
Registrar of Contractors
1700 W. Washington St., Ste. 105
Phoenix, AZ 85007
[email redacted]
Peter Glusac, Complainant
2575 Camino Del Rio
Bullhead City, AZ 86442
[email redacted]
Masco & Sons Too, LLC, Respondent
c/o Dustin “Scooter” Mascaro, Agent
3383 Sunbeam Dr.
Bullhead City, AZ 86429
[email redacted]
By: OAH Staff