ALJDEC - Licensing
2025A-00959-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2025-06-12
IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
Ana M Dayton,
COMPLAINANT,
v.
Ben Alvarez And Friends LLC
License No. ROC 332875,
RESPONDENT.
No. 2025A-00959-CHC-ROC
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION
HEARING: May 23, 2025.
APPEARANCES:
For Complainant: Ana Dayton.
For Respondent: Benjamin Alvarez.
For the Registrar of Contractors: Daniel Edwards.
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Samuel Fox
EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: Administrative notice was taken of the Notice of Hearing Packet submitted by the Registrar of Contractors.
_____________________________________________________________________
FINDINGS OF FACT
Ben Alvarez And Friends LLC (Respondent) was the holder of License No. 332875 issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (Registrar) on April 2, 2021.
On or about July 11, 2024, Ana Dayton (Complainant) entered into a verbal contract with Respondent for, among other things, remodeling her home.
On or about January 28, 2025, Complainant filed a Licensed Complaint Form with the Registrar, claiming abandonment and poor work.
The Registrar assigned the complaint to Investigator Daniel Edwards, who issued a Jobsite Inspection Notice on January 31, 2025, scheduling the inspection for February 5, 2025. It was rescheduled for February 6, 2025.
Investigator Edwards conducted the jobsite inspection on February 6, 2025, and Respondent was present. Following the inspection, Investigator Edwards issued a Written Directive From the Registrar to Respondent on February 25, 2025, with a completion date of March 13, 2025.
Investigator Edwards determined that no work had been performed.
On March 20, the Registrar issued a Citation against Respondent, finding cause to charge Respondent with violations of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(2)(b); A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3), specifically R4-9-108(A) and (B); A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(9)(a); A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(12), specifically A.R.S. § 32-1158; and A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22).
Respondent submitted an Answer to the Citation on March 31, 2025. Respondent did not contest violations of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(9)(a); A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(12), specifically A.R.S. § 32-1158; or A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22), but it did contest the other alleged violations.
On April 8, 2025, the Registrar issued a Notice of Hearing on Contested Case setting the hearing for May 23, 2025.
Respondent’s witness testified that his father was working under his license without his permission and he was not aware of the project. He testified that he and his father were not getting along.
Respondent’s witness was present on the job site at least once, and the funds paid by Complainant went to Respondent’s bank account.
Respondent’s witness’s testimony was not credible in dissociating Respondent from the work performed for Complainant by Respondent’s witness’s father.
Administrative notice was taken of Respondent’s prior License record on June 3, 2025. According to that record, Respondent’s License No. 332875 was suspended; the license had one open case and one disciplined case against it.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
This matter lies within the Registrar’s jurisdiction.
Respondent’s suspended license does not deprive Complainant of the right to prosecute the complaint or prevent the Registrar from determining the merits of the complaint.
Complainant bears the burden of proof to establish Respondent’s statutory violations by a preponderance of the evidence. Respondent bears the burden of proof to establish an affirmative defense 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 preponderance of the evidence established that Respondent departed from or disregarded a building code in violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(2)(b).
The preponderance of the evidence established that Respondent failed to perform all work 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 preponderance of the evidence established that Respondent failed to perform all work in accordance with applicable building codes and professional industry standards in violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(B).
The preponderance of the evidence established that Respondent attempted to evade this chapter, by disclaiming responsibility for the work performed for Complainant, by aiding or abetting a licensed or unlicensed person, his father, in violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(9).
The preponderance of the evidence established that Respondent failed to comply with this chapter in violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(12), namely the contract requirements in A.R.S. § 32-1158.
The preponderance of the evidence 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).
“The registrar may impose a civil penalty of not to exceed $500 on a contractor for each violation of subsection A, paragraph 22 of this section.” If a licensee fails to pay the civil penalty, their license is automatically revoked “thirty days after the effective date of the order providing for the civil penalty.” Additionally, any “person who is or was named on a license. . . may not receive a new license under this chapter until the entire civil penalty is paid.”
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Based on the foregoing, it is recommended that on the effective date of the Order, the Registrar shall revoke Respondent’s License No. 332875.
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).
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 12, 2025.
/s/ Samuel Fox
Administrative Law Judge
Transmitted by either mail, e-mail, or facsimile to:
Tom Cole, Director
Registrar of Contractors
Ben Alvarez And Friends LLC
[email redacted]
Ana M Dayton
[email redacted]
Daniel Edwards
[email redacted]
By: OAH Staff