ALJDEC - Licensing

2025A-01250-NPC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2025-06-05

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

All Around Hauling LLC,

COMPLAINANT

v.

Capital Landscapes LLC,

License No. ROC 294615,

RESPONDENT

No. 2025A-01250-NPC-ROC

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION

HEARING: May 23, 2025

APPEARANCES: Billy Barnett appeared via Google Meet on behalf of Complainant All Around Hauling LLC.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Adam D. Stone

EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE:

_____________________________________________________________________

FINDINGS OF FACT

On April 14, 2025, the Registrar of Contractors (“ROC”) issued a Notice of Hearing on Contested Case setting the above-captioned matter for hearing on May 23, 2025, at the Office of Administrative Hearings.

The Notice of Hearing shows that the hearing was being conducted on the charges made in the complaint and citation that were served on Respondent Capital Landscapes LLC on March 21, 2025. A copy of the Notice of Hearing, as well as an Order containing the Google Meet information was mailed and e-mailed to Respondent’s addresses of record.

Through the citation and Notice of Hearing, ROC alleges that Respondent may have violated Ariz. Rev. Stat. section 32-1154(A)(10).

Respondent holds License No. 294615 issued by ROC.

Complainant provided a dump truck and hauling on a project for which Respondent was the general contractor.

On February 3, 2025, Complainant filed with ROC a complaint against Respondent alleging that Respondent owed Complainant $1,051.25.

The hearing was convened on May 23, 2025. Although the tribunal waited 15 minutes for a representative of Respondent to appear, no one appeared and therefore, no evidence was taken from Respondent.

Mr. Barnett testified that he performed the services as agreed and on November 15, 2024 issued invoice 9065 in the amount of $1,051.25 to Respondent, and it remained unpaid.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

Unless otherwise provided by law, a party asserting a claim, right, or entitlement bears the burden of proof; a party asserting an affirmative defense has the burden of establishing the affirmative defense. The standard of proof on all issues in this matter is that of a preponderance of the evidence. Ariz. Admin. Code § R2-19-119.

“At a hearing on an agency action to suspend, revoke, terminate or modify on its own initiative material conditions of a license or permit, the agency has the burden of persuasion.” Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 41-1092.07(G)(2).

A preponderance of the evidence is:

The 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.

Black’s Law Dictionary 1373 (10th ed. 2014).

Statutes should be interpreted to provide a fair and sensible result. Gutierrez v. Industrial Commission of Arizona, 226 Ariz. 395, 249 P.3d 1095 (2011)(citation omitted); State v. McFall, 103 Ariz. 234, 238, 439 P.2d 805, 809 (1968) ("Courts will not place an absurd and unreasonable construction on statutes.").

“Statutes shall be liberally construed to effect their objects and to promote justice.” Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 1-211(B).

The purpose of the Registrar’s licensing statutes is to protect the public from unscrupulous, unqualified, and financially irresponsible contractors. See Aesthetic Property Maintenance v. Capital Indem. Corp., 183 Ariz. 74, 900 P. 2d 1210 (1995).

Among the grounds for suspension or revocation of a contractor’s license is a “[f]ailure by [the] licensee . . . to pay monies in excess of seven hundred fifty dollars when due for materials or services rendered in connection with the licensee’s operations as a contractor when the licensee has the capacity to pay or, if the licensee lacks the capacity to pay, when the licensee has received sufficient monies as payment for the particular construction work project or operation for which the services or materials were rendered or purchased.” Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(10).

The preponderance of the evidence shows that Respondent owes Complainant more than $750.00 for materials purchased and work performed in connection with Respondent’s operations as a contractor. From the credible evidence provided, the tribunal finds that the Complainant performed the services, and Respondent had failed to pay.

Therefore, the preponderance of the evidence shows that Respondent has violated section 32-1154(A)(10).

Respondent’s license should be suspended until it pays to Complainant $1,051.25.

RECOMMENDED ORDER

IT IS RECOMMENDED that Capital Landscapes LLC’s license number 294615 be suspended until the Registrar receives proof that it has paid to All Around Hauling LLC $1,051.25.

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 5, 2025.

/s/ Adam D. Stone

Administrative Law Judge

Transmitted by either mail, e-mail, or facsimile to:

Tom Cole, Director

Registrar of Contractors

Capital Landscapes LLC

[email redacted]

All Around Hauling LLC

[email redacted]

By: OAH Staff