ALJDEC - Licensing
2025A-01803-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2025-09-05
IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
Stephen Muela,
COMPLAINANT
v.
Victory Contracting LLC
License No. ROC 321316,
RESPONDENT
No. 2025A-01803-CHC-ROC
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION
HEARING: July 31, 2025
APPEARANCES:
Complainant: Lisa Muela
Stephen Muela
Respondent: No Appearance
Registrar of Contractors: Lisa Melton, Investigator
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Nedra-Su Kawasaki
EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: Administrative notice was taken of the Notice of Hearing Packet submitted by the Registrar of Contractors. Complainant Exhibits A-B.
_____________________________________________________________________
FINDINGS OF FACT
Victory Contracting LLC (Respondent) was the holder of License No. 321316 issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (Registrar) on July 27, 2018.
On or about January 13, 2024, Stephen Muela (Complainant) entered into a contract with Respondent for, among other things, a new in-ground pool build.
In August 2024, Complainant advised Respondent that at least one subcontractor had asked Complainant for payment and threatened to place a lien on Complainant’s home for non-payment.
In September 2024, Respondent advised Complainant that it would be able to start work again that month. No work was completed.
Respondent stated, again, in October 2024 that it would begin work, but no work was completed in October.
At the end of November 2024, Respondent advised Complainant that it would have tile, caps, and sheer descents installed the first part of the week following Thanksgiving.
On Thursday, December 5, 2024, Respondent advised Complainant that it would be there on the weekend to install the tile and asked Complainant to send a picture of the tile selection Complainant had made in January 2024.
On Friday, December 6, 2024, Respondent informed Complainant that the selected tile was out of stock and offered a different tile instead.
On December 15, 2024, the pillar build was completed and some tile was installed.
On January 21, 2025, Respondent advised that in the “next couple weeks [Respondent] will be signing on some [work] that will help [Respondent] get along with [Complainant’s] [project].”
On February 20, 2025, Respondent advised, “[Respondent] [was] working on a loan and should have it anytime within the next few weeks and [Respondent] [would] get everything started back.”
On March 8, 2025, Respondent advised that it would deliver some materials that week and try to get the electrical work done.
On or about March 16, 2025, Complainant filed a Licensed Complaint Form with the Registrar, claiming abandonment and poor work.
The Registrar assigned the complaint to Investigator Lisa Melton, who issued a Jobsite Inspection Notice on March 21, 2025, scheduling the inspection for April 4, 2025.
On March 30, 2025, Respondent advised Complainant that the business was shutting down.
Investigator Melton conducted the jobsite inspection on April 4, 2025, and Respondent was not present. Following the inspection, Investigator Melton did not issue a Written Directive From the Registrar to Respondent because she noted Respondent’s license was revoked on February 18, 2025.
On April 23, 2025, the Registrar issued a Citation against Respondent, finding cause to charge Respondent with violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(1).
Respondent submitted an Answer to the Citation on May 8, 2025. Respondent’s Answer denied the allegation and asserted that no abandonment or refusal to perform had occurred. In fact, Respondent claimed, it was actively working on the project at issue on April 24, 2025, the day notice of the complaint was received.
The Registrar referred the matter to the Office of Administrative Hearings, an independent state agency, for an evidentiary hearing.
On June 5, 2025, the Registrar issued a Notice of Hearing on Contested Case setting the hearing for July 18, 2025.
On or about July 17, 2025, Respondent requested that the hearing be continued due to a family emergency.
On or about July 18, 2025, the parties were notified the hearing was continued to July 31, 2025. The order granting the continuance from the Office of Administrative Hearings advised the parties of how to connect to the hearing via Google Meet.
The hearing was held via Google Meet on July 31, 2025.
Respondent did not request that the hearing be further continued. Although the start of the hearing was delayed 15 minutes, Respondent did not appear through an authorized member, employee, or attorney. Consequently, Respondent did not present any evidence to defend its license.
Investigator Melton testified in support of her jobsite inspection findings, the Citation, and that no Written Directive was issued due to Respondent’s license being revoked. Additionally, Investigator Melton testified that Respondent’s license was a Specialty Dual CR-36 Plastering license and that much of the work done (specifically, the excavation, pool interior, plumbing, and electrical), before abandonment, was outside the scope of the license.
Complainant testified that they signed a contract with Respondent for a new pool build in January 2024 for $49,900. Respondent informed Complainant that only one permit was required and was so obtained. However, due to the amount of time lapsed, the permit had to be renewed on multiple occasions. Thereafter, in January, Complainant went to Respondent’s office to select tile and pebble sheen. Despite the contract providing a payment schedule based on completed work/phases, Respondent requested and Complainant complied with the following payments:
1/16/24: $24,950 (deposit as agreed)
1/30/24: $5,800 (excavation completed as agreed)
2/15/24: $6,520
3/16/24: $8,000
3/23/24: $8,000
TOTAL: $53,270
Complainant further testified that Respondent told Complainant the additional cost was necessary for electrical work. Based on the above payment schedule, the project was paid in full, plus additional expenses, before April 2024, but the project was not completed.
Respondent failed to appear at the Hearing. Respondent’s Answer, submitted on May 8, 2025, claimed it was actively working on the project on April 24, 2025 when notice of the complaint at issue was received. Respondent’s Answer asserted that “any delays that occurred during the course of this project were promptly and clearly communicated with [Complainant]. These delays were due to standard construction variables such as weather, material delivery timing, and coordination with subcontractors. . . . At the time of this filing, the project is nearly complete, with only pool interior and equipment installation remaining.”
Administrative notice was taken of Respondent’s prior License record on August 1, 2025. According to that record, Respondent’s License No. 321316 was revoked on February 18, 2025, and expired on August 1, 2025; and there were no other open complaints and four prior complaints resulting in discipline against Respondent’s license.
/ / / / /
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Respondent was deemed to have received the Notice of Hearing by methods reasonably calculated to effect notice. The Registrar mailed copies of the Notice of Hearing on Contested Case to its address and email address of record, and the Office of Administrative Hearings sent the order setting the continued hearing date to Respondent at its email address of record.
This matter lies within the Registrar’s jurisdiction.
Respondent’s revoked 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.”
Abandonment means to give up on, withdraw from, or cease or surrender involvement in the project and contract. A contractor’s actions, or inaction, must be so severe, that a reasonable person could infer the contractor’s intent to abandon the project, incurring the consequences of that abandonment. Mere untimeliness or inefficiency does not amount to abandonment.
After a prolonged period of failing to work on a project, a contractor cannot overcome a claim of abandonment by accomplishing a minimal task on the project.
The preponderance of the evidence established that Respondent abandoned the project or refused to perform work without a legal excuse in violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(1).
In this case, at a minimum, the project could be considered abandoned as of December 15, 2024, the last day any work was completed prior to the filing of the complaint. However, there was also no work completed in September, October, or November 2024. Additionally, Respondent was more than paid in full for the entire project in April 2024. Yet, in late January 2025, one year after the start of the project, Respondent advised Complainant that they had taken on additional work that was meant to help them “get along” with Complainant’s project. Then, in late February 2025, Respondent advised Complainant that it was “working on” a loan in order to “get everything started back.” Despite advising Complainant in early March 2025 that it would deliver some materials and “try” to get the electrical work done, on March 30, 2025, Respondent advised Complainant that it was shutting down the business. Thus Respondent’s argument that “no abandonment or refusal to perform had occurred,” does not stand. Additionally, even if Respondent’s claim in its Answer that it was working on the project in April 2025 was taken for truth, Respondent’s license was revoked in February 2025. Therefore, Respondent was not licensed to complete any work in April 2025.
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. 321316.
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, September 5, 2025.
/s/ Nedra-Su Kawasaki
Administrative Law Judge
Transmitted by either mail, e-mail, or facsimile to:
Tom Cole, Director
Registrar of Contractors
Lisa Melton
[email redacted]
Stephen Muela
[email redacted]
Victory Contracting LLC
[email redacted]
By: OAH Staff