ALJDEC - Licensing
2025A-02045-NPC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2026-04-22
IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
Phoenix Scaffolding LLC,
COMPLAINANT.
v.
Ausi Master Builders LLC
License No. ROC 317204,
RESPONDENT.
No. 2025A-02045-NPC-ROC
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION
HEARING: April 10, 2026
APPEARANCES: Melinda Yarbro appeared on behalf of Phoenix Scaffolding, LLC. No one appeared on behalf of Ausi Master Builders, LLC.
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Velva Moses-Thompson
EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: Exhibit A: The hearing packet submitted by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors.
_____________________________________________________________________
FINDINGS OF FACT
On June 18, 2025, the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (Registrar) issued a Notice of Hearing setting the above-entitled matter for hearing on July 28, 2025.
The Notice of Hearing shows that the complaint and citation issued in the above-entitled matter allege that Ausi Master Builders, LLC (Ausi Master) failed to pay monies in excess of $750 for materials or services rendered in connection with Ausi Master’s operations as a contractor, as described in Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(10).
At hearing, Melinda Yarbro, an employee of Phoenix Scaffolding, testified on behalf of Phoenix Scaffolding.
Phoenix Scaffolding agreed to provide labor and materials to Ausi Master for a construction project located at 9777 W. Happy Valley Rd., Peoria, Arizona 85383 (the project).
In 2022 and 2023, Phoenix Scaffolding provided labor and materials to the project.
Phoenix Scaffolding submitted invoices to Ausi Master for the labor and materials provided, however, Ausi Master failed to pay all of the invoices.
Phoenix Scaffolding filed a complaint with the Registrar alleging that Ausi Master failed to pay Phoenix Scaffolding a total of $27,498.72 when payment became due for labor and materials provided to Austi Master.
The Registrar issued a Citation against Ausi Master’s license alleging that Ausi Master failed to pay for monies in excess of $750 that became due in connection with Ausi Master’s work as a contractor, as described in Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(10).
The matter was referred to the Office of Administrative Hearings for an evidentiary hearing.
At hearing, Ms. Yarbro explained that Ausi Master has made payments to Phoenix Scaffolding since the complaint was filed, however, there is still a balance of $8,000.00.
I find Ms. Yarbro’s testimony to be credible.
No one appeared on behalf of Ausi Master at the hearing on April 10, 2026.
Although the hearing did not start until approximately 9:15 a.m., no one appeared on behalf of Ausi Master through an authorized member, officer, employee, or attorney, or contact the Office of Administrative Hearings to request that the start of the hearing be further delayed. Consequently, Ausi Master did not present any evidence to defend its license.
CONCLUSIONS OF 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. Arizona Administrative 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.” A.R.S. § 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.” A.R.S.. § 1-211(B).
The purpose of the ROC’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).
7. A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(10) includes among the grounds for suspension, revocation, or other disciplinary action against a contractor’s license “[f]ailure by a 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.” Emphasis Added.
8. Phoenix Scaffolding has met its burden to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that Ausi Master failed to pay Phoenix Scaffolding an excess of $750 when payment became due for the labor and materials provided to Ausi Master. The undisputed evidence presented at hearing shows that Ausi Master has failed to pay Phoenix Scaffolding a balance of $8,000.00 as of the hearing date.
9. The preponderance of the evidence shows that Ausi Master violated Ariz. Rev. Stat section 32-1154(A)(10) as alleged.
10. The Administrative Law Judge concludes that grounds exist to impose discipline on Ausi Master’s license.
RECOMMENDed order
Based on the foregoing, it is recommended that the Registrar suspend license number 317204 held by Ausi Master Builders, LLC, until it has provided to the Registrar, and the Registrar has accepted documents that establish that it has paid Ausi Master Builders LLC $8,000.00 in certified funds.
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, April 22, 2026.
/s/ Velva Moses-Thompson
Administrative Law Judge
Transmitted by either mail, e-mail, or facsimile to:
Tom Cole, Director
Registrar of Contractors
Phoenix Scaffolding LLC
[email redacted]
Ausi Master Builders LLC
[email redacted]
By: OAH Staff