ALJDEC - Licensing
2025A-00944-NPC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2025-11-23
IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
Sun Lighting Inc.,
COMPLAINANT,
v.
Spark Electric LLC,
License No. ROC 328907,
RESPONDENT.
No. 2025A-00944-NPC-ROC
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION
HEARING: November 10, 2025 at 9:00am
APPEARANCES: Attorney Andrew Whitehill appeared on behalf of Complainant Sun Lighting, Incorporated with witnesses Alana Reyes and Jeffrey Levkowitz. Urban Stewart appeared on behalf of Spark Electric, LLC.
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Nicole Robinson
EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: Arizona Registrar of Contractors Notice of Hearing Packet (“Packet”). Complainant Exhibits 1 through 6.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Spark Electric, LLC (“Respondent”) is the holder of License No. ROC 328907 issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (“Registrar”).
On or about January 28 2025, Sun Lighting, Incorporated (“Complainant”), a lighting material supplier, filed a Complaint against Respondent with the Registrar alleging that Respondent had failed to pay Complainant the sum of $16,697.63 for lighting materials.
The parties were unable to resolve their differences, and Complainant requested an administrative hearing. The Registrar then issued a Citation for Alleged Violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(10).
Respondent did not assert that it lacked the capacity to pay the amount Complainant asserted was due.
Hearing Evidence
Alana Reyes, Chief Executive Officer of Complainant business, testified on her own behalf and presented the testimony of Jeffrey Levkowitz, sales and business development representative of Complainant business. Respondent presented the testimony of Urban Stewart, owner of Respondent Company. Administrative notice was taken of the Registrar’s packet which includes the Notice of Hearing. The substantive evidence of record is as follows:
Complainant has been in business since 1953.
Respondent has been a customer of Complainant for a few years.
Complainant’s process was not to bill until the customer picks up the purchased materials.
Respondent began to accumulate a continuing balance after a few purchases. After reconciliation, Complainant determined that Respondent owed $16,483.59.
Respondent returned to Complainant, 44 trims due to faulty product. Complainant credited Respondent $704.00. The total amount owed to Complainant was $15,779.59.
Mr. Stewart argued that Spark Home Automation, LLC owed Complainant the outstanding balance and not Respondent. Mr. Stewart argued that this was not a Registrar matter. Spark Home Automation, LLC, does not have a Registrar license number.
Mr. Levkowitz testified that Mr. Stewart never informed Complainant that Spark Home Automation, LLC was different than Respondent, Spark Electric, LLC.
Respondent used checks to pay Complainant with the header “Spark Electric LLC dba Spark Home Automation.”
Respondent’s website states “SPARK Home Automation LLC” and SPARK ELECTRIC, LLC.”
In email correspondence, Mr. Stewart sent emails with the website address “www.sparkhomeautomation.com” and identifying information, Spark Electric LLC ROC 328907.”
On November 10, 2025, the Registrar website does not list Respondent business with a dba, doing business as designation.
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 these matters 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.”
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 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 purpose of the Registrar’s licensing statutes is to protect the public from unscrupulous, unqualified, and financially irresponsible contractors.
The preponderance of the evidence shows that Respondent owed Complainant more than $750.00 for materials/services provided in connection with Respondent’s operations as a contractor.
It was clear from the evidence and testimony provided that Mr. Stewart has commingled his two LLC entities, however, only one entity was listed with a Registrar license, which was Spark Electric, LLC.
The evidence established that Respondent owed a total of $15,779.59 for materials received and Mr. Stewart agreed that he owed that amount.
Respondent failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that it lacked the ability to pay Complainant for the work performed. In addition, Mr. Stewart failed to establish that Complainant owed Spark Home Automation instead of Respondent. For purposes of this matter, the entities are one in the same and Mr. Stewart has failed to provide a “dba” to the Registrar.
Therefore, Complainant established that Respondent violated Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(10) by failing to pay Complainant $15,779.59 for services or materials rendered in connection with Respondent’s contracting business.
RECOMMENDed order
Based on the foregoing,
It is recommended that the Registrar suspend Respondent’s License No. 328907 issued by the Registrar until it has provided to the Registrar, and the Registrar has accepted, documents that establish that it has paid Complainant $15,779.59 in certified funds.
It is further recommended that when and if the Registrar receives and accepts Respondent’s evidence that it has paid Complainant $15,779.59 in certified funds, the Registrar may close the Complaint in Case No. 2025A-00944.
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, November 23, 2025.
/s/ Nicole Robinson
Administrative Law Judge
Transmitted by either mail, e-mail, or facsimile to:
Tom Cole, Director
Registrar of Contractors
c/o Legal Department
1700 W. Washington Street, Suite 105
Phoenix, AZ 85007
[email redacted]
Andrew Whitehill, Esq.
Whitehill Law Offices, P.C.
2730 E Broadway, Suite 160
Tucson, AZ 85716
[email redacted]
Spark Electric LLC
1826 W Broadway Rd
Mesa, AZ 85202
[email redacted]
By: OAH Staff