ALJDEC - Licensing
2025A-01242-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2025-08-27
IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
Alma Beshku,
COMPLAINANT,
v.
Metro Concrete Arizona LLC,
License No. ROC 347745,
RESPONDENT.
No. 2025A-01242-CHC-ROC
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION
HEARING: August 11, 2025.
APPEARANCES:
For Complainant: Alma Beshku.
For Respondent: James Riggs.
For the Registrar of Contractors: David Fagerburg.
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
Metro Concrete Arizona LLC (Respondent) was the holder of License No. 347745 issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (Registrar) on September 20, 2023.
On or about January 31, 2024, Alma Beshku (Complainant) entered into a contract with Respondent for, among other things, basic grey epoxy floor coating.
On or about January 22, 2025, Complainant filed a Licensed Complaint Form with the Registrar, claiming poor work.
The Registrar assigned the complaint to Investigator David Fagerburg, who conducted a noticed jobsite inspection on March 11, 2025. Respondent was not present.
On March 28, 2025, Investigator Fagerburg issued a Written Directive From the Registrar to Respondent, notifying Respondent that its quote/contract was missing three of the required elements, specifically 1, 4, and 9 of A.R.S. § 32-1158(A), and directing Respondent to correct the identified deficiencies by April 18, 2025.
Complainant informed Investigator Fagerburg that no corrective work had been performed on the project during the Directive Period. Respondent’s representative informed Investigator Fagerburg that he had contacted Complainant to clarify some issues, but he never received a response.
On April 22, 2025, the Registrar issued a Citation against Respondent, finding cause to charge Respondent with violations of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(2)(a); A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3), specifically R4-9-108(A); A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(12), specifically A.R.S. § 32-1158(A)(1), (4), (9); and A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22).
Respondent submitted an Answer to the Citation on May 5, 2025.
The Registrar referred the matter to the Office of Administrative Hearings, an independent state agency, for an evidentiary hearing.
On May 19, 2025, the Registrar issued a Notice of Hearing on Contested Case setting the matter for hearing.
Investigator Fagerburg testified in support of his investigation.
Complainant testified in agreement with Investigator Fagerburg.
Respondent’s witness testified that Complainant chose the materials, and Respondent did not finish the work because Complainant’s husband did not like the materials. He testified that he contacted Complainant to get clarity about what materials he should use to finish the job, but Complainant never responded. Respondent’s witness testified that he was not told to stay off the property, and he did not take material steps toward completing the work. He credibly testified that he wanted to make sure Complainant was happy with the materials, and if Complainant had communicated with him, he would have completed the work pursuant to the Directive.
Administrative notice was taken of Respondent’s prior License record on August 11, 2025. According to that record, Respondent’s License No. 347745 was Active. The license had two open complaints and one resolved/settled complaints 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. 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.”
Respondent’s representative argued that his attempts to communicate with Complainant and good faith desire to complete the work should be considered in this process. While it may be taken into account regarding the penalty imposed for violations, it does not negate violations because it does not arise to a denial of access.
The preponderance of the evidence established that Respondent departed from or disregarded plans or specifications in violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(2)(a).
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 comply with this chapter in violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(12), namely the contract requirements in A.R.S. § 32-1158(A)(1), (4), and (9).
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).
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Based on the foregoing, it is recommended that on the effective date of the Order, the Registrar shall suspend for one day Respondent’s License No. 347745.
It is further recommended that within thirty days of the effective date of the Order Respondent shall provide an amended contract to the Registrar which establishes compliance with the requirements in A.R.S. § 32-1158. If Respondent fails to comply, Respondent’s license shall be suspended until it provides a compliant contract.
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/ Samuel Fox
Administrative Law Judge
Transmitted by either mail, e-mail, or facsimile to:
Tom Cole, Director
Registrar of Contractors
David Fagerburg
[email redacted]
Metro Concrete Arizona LLC
[email redacted]
Alma Beshku
[email redacted]
By: OAH Staff