ALJDEC - Licensing
2025A-01141-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2025-08-27
IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
Arthur Moore,
COMPLAINANT,
v.
Get Right Flooring LLC
License No. ROC 346650,
RESPONDENT.
No. 2025A-01141-CHC-ROC
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION
HEARING: August 19, 2025 at 9:00am
APPEARANCES: Complainant Arthur Moore on his own behalf with witness Kimberly Moore. Jose Cortez on behalf of Respondent Get Right Flooring, LLC. Investigator Gregory Johndrow on behalf of the Arizona Registrar of Contractors.
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Nicole Robinson
EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: Arizona Registrar of Contractors Notice of Hearing Packet (“Packet”).
FINDINGS OF FACT
Get Right Flooring, LLC (“Respondent”) is the holder of License No. ROC 346650 issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (“Registrar”).
On or about September 9, 2024, Arthur Moore (“Complainant”) entered into a contract with Respondent for, among other things, a residential flooring project. The contract consisted of Invoice #191 dated September 9, 2024, in the total amount of $7,192.02 and was never signed by either party. The contract did not include an estimated date of completion, any information regarding progress payments, nor any information about the Registrar.
On or about February 17, 2025, the Registrar received a Complaint against Respondent from Complainant alleging poor work with respect to the project.
The Registrar assigned the complaint to Investigator Gregory Johndrow. On April 15, 2025, Investigator Johndrow conducted a jobsite inspection in which Respondent was not present.
On April 16, 2025, Investigator Johndrow issued a Written Directive to Respondent that provided 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 Friday, May 2, 2025.
. . . .
RESTRICTIONS
If your license is currently suspended for administrative reasons, 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.
DIRECTIVE REQUIREMENTS
You are directed to remedy the following violations by the appropriate means:
Complaint Item 1: “Flooring at tile transitions at bath and laundry not installed correctly.”
Investigator’s Observations: Verified. The complainant pointed out the flooring has been attached to the subfloor with screws and is butted up to the tile. Additionally, the transition moulding is missing at the bathroom doorway. The manufacture installation instructions specifically states, listed under the Site Requirements, “Floor movement must not be constrained by glue, nails, screws, hardware or other fixed obstructions.” The manufacture installation instructions specifically states, listed under the Flooring Installation, “Provide a 3/8” space for expansion on all sides.”
. . . .
Complaint Item 2: “Trim on wall at top of stairs not installed correctly.” Investigator’s Observations: Verified. The baseboards on the wall at the top of the stair landing in the loft is missing an approximate 2’ section and the remaining base run in not properly attached or finished to the wall.
. . . .
Complaint Item 3: “New flooring and trim demoed and not repaired.” Investigator’s Observations: Verified. The complainant pointed out and showed this allegation to be the unfinished sections of baseboards along the stairs riser/run where the lights are located.
. . . .
Complaint Item 4: “Trim paint and caulk on new flooring and walls.” Investigator’s Observations: Verified. The complainant pointed out sections of the white walls that were painted with the baseboard paint and paint on the new flooring where the baseboards meet the flooring.
. . . .
Complaint Item 6: “Dirt line on all walls in hallway and stairway.” Investigator’s Observations: Verified. The complainant pointed out and showed the described conditions in the listed locations.
. . . .
Complaint Item 7: “Damage to stair railing base at top of stairs.” Investigator’s Observations: Verified. The base of the stair rail is chipped and scratched.
. . . .
Complaint Item 8: “Scratches on new flooring when they moved furniture.” Investigator’s Observations: Verified. The complainant pointed out a scratch across the new flooring in the master bedroom.
. . . .
Complaint Item 9: “Unfinished corner trim in upstairs hall.”
Investigator’s Observations: Verified. The outside corner next to the closet has not been finished.
. . . .
Complaint Item 12: “Tool marks on walls.”
Investigator’s Observations: Verified. Duplicate to issues alleged in complaint item 6.
. . . .
Complaint Item 13: “Damage to metal corner beading at top of stairs.” Investigator’s Observations: Verified. The bullnose corner on the stair wall at the top landing inside the loft is dented above the base.
. . . .
Complaint Item 14: “Visible seams on stair risers. Contractor did not order correct material and assured us seams would not be visible.”
Investigator’s Observations: Verified. The described conditions are present on 3 of the 4 risers on the bottom stairs.
. . . .
Complaint Item 15: “Caulking on fabric furniture.”
Investigator’s Observations: Verified. The complainant pointed out and showed two areas of caulking on the sleeper sofa in the upstairs office.
. . . .
Complaint Item 16: “Water drips down walls where they wiped with a wet rag.”
Investigator’s Observations: Verified. The complainant pointed out and showed the described conditions in multiple locations.
. . . .
ADDITIONAL VIOLATIONS
In addition to the allegations in the complaint, the following violations were verified:
Warning Letter: Elements of a Contract.
Governing Rule: A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(12), Namely A.R.S. § 32-1158(A) Minimum Elements of a Contract.
REQUIRED CORRECTIVE ACTION: The respondent is to submit a copy of a current contract form that complies with the provisions of A.R.S. § 32-1158.
Following the issuance of the Written Directive, there was some communication but no work was performed. After the deadline in the directive expired, Investigator Johndrow was notified by Complainant on May 5, 2025 that no corrective work had been performed.
On May 7, 2025, the Registrar issued a Citation against Respondent, charging possible violations of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely Ariz. Admin. Code R4-9-108(A); Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(12) - Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1158; and Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(22).
Respondent requested an informal settlement conference. The Registrar set up that conference for June 10, 2025. Complainant was present and Respondent did not appear.
Hearing Evidence
Complainant testified that Respondent would be scheduled to perform work on the project but would not keep the appointment which led to a lot of rescheduling issues. Complainant argued that he took many sick days and leave time from work to be onsite and oversee the project, however, Respondent would cancel on him. Complainant testified that they attended the informal settlement conference that Mr. Cortez requested and then no one from Respondent appeared.
Jose Cortez, Respondent owner testified on behalf of his business. Mr. Cortez admitted that he “failed to file an extension” and that he “misunderstood dates” on the Directive. Mr. Cortez stated that he has been in the flooring industry for over 20 years. Mr. Cortez further testified that he did not provide a written contract that adhered to the law but would work on Respondent’s contract language.
Administrative notice is taken of Respondent’s prior License record on August 19, 2025. Such prior License record reflects that Respondent’s License No. ROC 346650 was first issued on July 21, 2023, and was Suspended. Such prior License record also reflects that there were two open complaints and one complaint resulting in discipline against Respondent’s license.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
This matter lies within the Registrar’s jurisdiction.
Complainant bears the burden of proof to establish Respondent’s statutory violations by a preponderance of the evidence. A preponderance of the evidence means “[p]roof which leads the trier of fact to find that the existence of the contested fact is more probable than its nonexistence.”
In this case, there were approximately 14 outstanding complaint items that needed to be remedied by Respondent per the Written Directive. Mr. Cortez was provided with ample opportunity to perform the corrected work but did not. As such, the evidence established that Respondent’s work was not in conformity with the Registrar’s standards. Therefore, Complainant established that Respondent did not complete the project in a workmanlike manner in violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely Ariz. Admin. Code R4-9-108(A).
In regards to the contract, which was charge two in the Citation, the evidence established that Respondent’s contract failed to include the required elements of a contract set forth in Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1158(A). Therefore, Complainant established that Respondent failed to comply with the Registrar’s statute in violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(12).
The evidence established that Respondent did not attempt to complete the corrective work following the Directive being issued. In addition, Mr. Cortez requested an informal settlement conference to try and settle the matter outside of a Tribunal hearing, however, he failed to appear for that meeting. Therefore, Complainant established that Respondent failed to take appropriate corrective action following a written directive from the Registrar in violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(22).
Respondent’s suspended license does not deprive Complainants of their right to prosecute their complaint or prevent the Registrar from determining the merits of the complaint.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Based on the foregoing,
It is recommended that on the effective date of the Order, the Registrar shall suspend Respondent’s License No. ROC 346650 for a period of four days.
It is further recommended that the Registrar require Respondent to pay the sum of $250.00 as a civil penalty pursuant to Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 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. § 32-1101(A)(5), unless Respondent tenders payment of any outstanding prior civil penalty.
It is further recommended that, on or before thirty (30) days after the effective date of the final order, Respondent shall provide a sample contract to the Registrar to demonstrate that it has amended its contracts to include the nine terms required by Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1158(A). If Respondent fails to establish to the Registrar that it has brought its contracts into compliance with Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1158(A) within thirty days, its contractor’s license shall be suspended until it demonstrates that it has done so.
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, August 27, 2025.
/s/ Nicole Robinson
Administrative Law Judge
Transmitted by either mail, e-mail, or facsimile to:
Get Right Flooring LLC
6982 E 42nd St
Tucson, AZ 85730
[email redacted]
Tom Cole, Director
Registrar of Contractors
c/o Legal Department
1700 W. Washington Street, Suite 105
Phoenix, AZ 85007
[email redacted]
Gregory Johndrow
[email redacted]
Arthur Moore
980 W CALLE SUCRE
SAHUARITA, AZ 85629
[email redacted]
By: OAH Staff