ALJDEC - Licensing
2025A-01790-NPC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2025-06-19
IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
Arizona Interiors LLC,
COMPLAINANT
v.
Prodigy Development Group LLC,
License No. ROC 348857,
RESPONDENT
No. 2025A-01790-NPC-ROC
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION
HEARING: June 4, 2025
APPEARANCES: Febronio Lopez appeared on behalf of Complainant Arizona Interiors LLC. Jeff Addington appeared on behalf of Respondent Prodigy Development Group LLC.
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Adam D. Stone
EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE:
_____________________________________________________________________
FINDINGS OF FACT
On April 28, 2025, the Registrar of Contractors (“ROC”) issued a Notice of Hearing on Contested Case setting the above-captioned matter for hearing on June 1, 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 Prodigy Development Group LLC on April 11, 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. 348857 issued by ROC.
Complainant is Arizona Interiors LLC.
Complainant provided cabinets on a project for which Respondent was the general contractor.
On February 20, 2025, Complainant filed with ROC a complaint against Respondent alleging that Respondent owed Complainant $5,970.00.
The hearing was convened on June 4, 2025.
Mr. Lopez testified that the business relationship commenced in October, and he was paid for the first project he completed. However, he had not been paid on invoice 1820 in the amount of $5,970.00. Mr. Lopez testified that no one had brought it to his attention that there was something wrong with his work, and that he would have fixed the same if given the opportunity.
Mr. Addington testified that the work was not authorized and was not up to industry standards. Because of this, Mr. Addington argued that he could invoke various provisions from the contract which would allow him to withhold payment. Further, Mr. Addington testified that Mr. Lopez was informed about the poor work, and refused to complete the same until he was paid on the project. Mr. Addington testified that because of this, his client had to hire another contractor to complete the work.
Both parties testified that in the morning prior to the commencement of the hearing, Mr. Addington offered $3,000.00 to resolve the matter, but Mr. Lopez refused stating it was too late and had he offered that amount earlier, he would have accepted the same.
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 material portions of the contract read as follows:
1. Master Agreement. This Agreement describes the terms and conditions under which Subcontractor will provide services for Projects as designated by PDG... Subcontractor shall not begin Work, nor is PDG liable for any cost of such work or other associated costs on any Project, until PDG has executed a Purchase Order or Work Order for the specific Project and it has been approved and received by all involved parties.
. . .
5. Payment/Compensation: ... (c) The fact that PDG may have made a progress payment, or used or occupied the Project, shall not constitute acceptance of Work not performed in substantial compliance with the Contract Documents. Payments may be withheld if: (i) Work is found to be defective and not remedied to the reasonable satisfaction of PDG in accordance with the Contract Documents and industry standards and practices;...
As to the matter at hand, and from the credible evidence provided, there was no purchase or work order for the work performed on this invoice, which is a valid defense to this complaint.
Therefore, the preponderance of the evidence shows that Respondent has not violated section 32-1154(A)(10).
RECOMMENDED ORDER
IT IS RECOMMENDED that the Registrar dismiss the Complaint in this matter.
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 19, 2025.
/s/ Adam D. Stone
Administrative Law Judge
Transmitted by either mail, e-mail, or facsimile to:
Tom Cole, Director
Registrar of Contractors
Prodigy Development Group LLC
[email redacted]
Arizona Interiors LLC
[email redacted]
By: OAH Staff