ALJDEC - Licensing

2025A-02052-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2025-08-11

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

Robin Fischer,

COMPLAINANT,

Blue River Builders LLC

dba Rudy Contracting,

License Nos. ROC 243750, 337936, 334628, 334747,

RESPONDENT.

No. 2025A-02052-CHC-ROC

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION

HEARING: July 21, 2025.

APPEARANCES: Robin L. Fischer appeared her own behalf. Rudolpho Granado appeared representing Blue River Builders LLC dba Rudy Contracting. ROC Investigator John Smith appeared as witness from Arizona Registrar of Contractors.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Kay A. Abramsohn

EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: ROC Packet

_____________________________________________________________________

FINDINGS OF FACT

Blue River Builders LLC dba Rudy Contracting is the holder of Contracting License No. 243750, B General Residential, issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (Registrar or ROC) in March 2008.

On or about February 28, 2025, the Registrar received a Licensed Complaint Form (Complaint) from Robin Fischer (Complainant) against Respondent alleging poor construction work. According to the Complaint, work began on December 3, 2024 but stopped on January 20, 2025. The Complaint included allegations regarding work on a shower floor and the plumbing drainage. The stated cost of the work was $8,000.00.

The Registrar assigned the Complaint to Investigator (Inv.) John Smith.

On March 10, 2025, Inv. Smith issued two warning letters to Respondent: one regarding required Elements of a Contract and the other regarding required Permits.

Inv. Smith set a jobsite inspection for April 18, 2025. Respondent did appear at the jobsite inspection. At that time, Inv. Smith documented the workmanship issues regarding the shower project.

On April 18, 2025, Inv. Smith issued a Directive against Respondent’s License #243750 requiring that Respondent perform corrective work and notify the Investigator no later than May 16, 2025 that the work was completed. Regarding the requisite work, the Directive indicates the following, in pertinent part:

DIRECTIVE REQUIREMENTS

The respondent is directed to:

• Obtain all necessary permits from the local building authorities

• Satisfy all requirements of the local building authorities

• Ensure proper drainage/flow through drains

• Remedy the following violations by the appropriate means:

Complaint Item 1: “The shower floor was not pitched properly for drainage.

The tub drain that was converted to a 2nd shower drain does not drain.”

Investigator’s Observations: Verified.

Portions of the shower floor have only a 1/32 inch per foot slope towards the drain.

This project included:

• Removing the pre-existing tub

• Removing the re-existing shower

• Converting the space to one large shower

• Modifying plumbing inside the wall(s), above the ceiling, and below the floor.

This is permit required work that was performed without a permit being obtained.

Section P2709

Shower Receptors

P2709.1 Construction.

Where a shower receptor has a finished curb threshold, it shall be not less than 1 inch (25 mm) below the sides and back of the receptor. The curb shall be not less than 2 inches (51 mm) and not more than 9 inches (229 mm) deep when measured from the top of the curb to the top of the drain. The finished floor shall slope uniformly toward the drain not less than 1⁄4 unit vertical in 12 units horizontal (2-percent slope) nor more than 1⁄2 unit vertical per 12 units horizontal (4-percent slope) and floor drains shall be flanged to provide a water-tight joint in the floor.

Section P2503 Inspection and Tests

P2503.1 Inspection Required.

New plumbing work and parts of existing systems affected by new work or alterations shall be inspected by the building official to ensure compliance with the requirements of this code.

P2503.2 Concealment

A plumbing or drainage system, or part thereof, shall not be covered, concealed or put into use until it has been tested, inspected and approved by the building official.

Note: this is not an all-inclusive list of applicable codes.

Governing Rule: A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(2): Departure from or disregard of: (b) A building code.

Governing Rule: A.R.S. § 32-1154 (A)(3) - R4-9-108(a): Violation of any rule adopted by the registrar; Namely R 4-9-108(a) A contractor shall perform work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

Governing Rule: A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(2): Departure from or disregard of: (b) A building code.

Complaint Item 3: “Shower floor was done incorrectly and pools, improper pitch

New shower drain does not drain, at ALL!”

Investigator’s Observations: Verified.

Portions of the shower floor have only a 1/32 inch per foot slope towards the drain.

This project included:

• Removing the pre-existing tub

• Removing the re-existing shower

• Converting the space to one large shower

• Modifying plumbing inside the wall(s), above the ceiling, and below the floor.

This is permit required work that was performed without a permit being obtained.

Section P2709

Shower Receptors

P2709.1 Construction.

Section P2503

Inspection and Tests

P2503.1 Inspection Required.

New plumbing work and parts of existing systems affected by new work or alterations shall be inspected by the building official to ensure compliance with the requirements of this code.

P2503.2 Concealment

A plumbing or drainage system, or part thereof, shall not be covered, concealed or put into use until it has been tested, inspected and approved by the building official.

Note: this is not an all-inclusive list of applicable codes.

Governing Rule: A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(2): Departure from or disregard of: (b) A building code.

Governing Rule: A.R.S. § 32-1154 (A)(3) - R4-9-108(a): Violation of any rule adopted by the registrar; Namely R 4-9-108(a) A contractor shall perform work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

Governing Rule: A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(2): Departure from or disregard of: (b) A building code.

On May 14, 2025, Respondent indicated to Inv. Smith that he wanted to comply but could not get permits until after May 27, 2025.

On May 19, 2025, Complainant indicated to Inv. Smith that Respondent had not completed any of the corrective work in the Directive work.

Inv. Smith forwarded the matter to ROC legal Department.

On May 21, 2025, the Registrar issued a Citation against Respondent charging the following possible violations:

Charge :1 A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(2)(b)

Departure from or disregard of: (b) A building code of this state or any political subdivision of this state in any material respect that it prejudicial to another.

Charge :2 A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) - R4-9-108(A)

Violation of any rule adopted by the Registrar; Namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(a): A contractor shall perform all work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

Charge :3 A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) - R4-9-108(B)

Violation of any rule adopted by the Registrar; Namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(b): A contractor shall perform all work in accordance with any applicable building codes and professional industry standards. For work to be performed in accordance with professional industry standards, a contractor shall use skills, prudence, and diligence in performing and completing tasks undertaken that the completed work meets the standards of a similarly licensed contractor

possessing ordinary skill and capacity A contractor shall perform all work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

Charge : 4 A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(12) – A.R.S. § 32-1158

Failure in any material respect to comply with this chapter; Namely A.R.S. § 32-1158.

Charge : 5 A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22)

Failure to take appropriate corrective action to comply with this chapter or with rules adopted pursuant to this chapter without valid justification within a reasonable period of time after receiving a written directive from the Registrar. The written directive shall set forth the time within which the contractor is to complete the remedial action. The time permitted for compliance shall not be less than fifteen days from the date of issuance of the directive. A license shall not be revoked or suspended nor shall any other penalty be imposed for a violation of this paragraph until after a hearing has been held.

On June 1, 2025, Respondent filed an Answer to the Citation. Respondent noted that there had been recent health issue which took him away from supervision of his workers and he was prepared to do whatever was necessary to prevent revocation of his license. Respondent indicated that he had misunderstood the Directive and agreed that he would correct the Complaint items #1 and #3. Respondent indicated that he had applied for the necessary permit.

The Registrar subsequently referred the matter to the Office of Administrative Hearings, an independent State agency, for an evidentiary administrative hearing.

At the hearing, Inv. Smith testified consistent with the findings contained in his Jobsite Inspection and Directive. Inv. Smith noted that Respondent had not asked for an extension of the Directive deadline; further, that Respondent’s application for the permit had not been approved.

At hearing, Complainant indicated that while Respondent was at the home on a different project, Complainant had asked him about the shower project and Respondent had indicated that a permit was not necessary. Complainant argued that the work had not been completed and the parties had not settled the matter. Complainant noted that the shower is not a functioning shower and that Oro Valley had now indicated that the shower work has to be redone.

At hearing, Respondent agreed that he had not obtained a permit, but indicated he had applied for the permit and it had been “cancelled” on him. Respondent noted that he had relied on his worker during his health issues. Respondent argued that this was his only complaint and that he did agree to fix the work. Respondent stated that he provided a final invoice, which he had needed to have paid so he could pay his workers, and that he had been upset that Complainant wanted him to wait for payment [until she was back in town].

Administrative notice is taken of Respondent’s license history and status with the Registrar on August 11, 2025. Respondent’s license record reflects that Respondent’s License No. 243750 is active, with one open cases, which is the instant case.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

This matter lies within the Registrar’s jurisdiction. See Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1101 et seq.

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.

In this case, Complainant bears the burden of proof to establish Respondent’s statutory violations by a preponderance of the evidence. See Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 41-1092.07(G)(2); Ariz. Admin. Code R2-19-119(A) and Ariz. Admin. Code Section R2-19-119(B)(1); see also Vazzano v. Superior Court, 74 Ariz. 369, 372, 249 P.2d 837 (1952). “A preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.” Morris K. Udall, Arizona Law of Evidence § 5 (1960).

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).

5. 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.").

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

7. 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).

8. Construction is not a perfect art and, normally, contractors must be allowed an opportunity to correct poor workmanship before their licenses may be suspended or revoked as a result of a failure to comply with workmanship standards.

9. The Directive mandated correction of the Directive items #1 and #3. Although an appropriate period of time was given, Respondent did not perform any corrective work to complete the Directive items.

10. Based on the evidence in the hearing record, the Administrative Law Judge concludes that the Investigator-determined workmanship issues existed and, thus, Respondent was in violation of the following statutory and regulatory provisions: Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(3), specifically Ariz. Admin. Code R4-9-108(A) and R4-9-108(B) as stated in the ROC Citation.

11. Based on the evidence in the hearing record, the Administrative Law Judge concludes that the Investigator-determined workmanship issues existed and that Respondent had failed to comply with the Directive by the Directive deadline. Therefore, Respondent is in violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(22) for failure to take appropriate corrective action within the time period allowed in the Directive.

12. Based on the evidence in the hearing record, the Administrative Law Judge concludes that the Investigator-determined contractual insufficiencies existed and, thus, Respondent was in violation of the Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(12), specifically Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1158 regarding the requisite elements of a contract.

13. Finally, based on the evidence in the hearing record, the Administrative Law Judge concludes Respondent had failed to obtain the requisite permits and thus, Respondent was in violation of the Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(2)(b) in disregard of applicable building codes.

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Based on the foregoing, it is recommended that the Registrar impose discipline on Respondent’s ROC License No. 243750 as follows:

a three business-day suspension on the effective date of the Registrar’s final Order in this matter; and,

Respondent pay a civil penalty in the amount of $500.00 payable to the Registrar on or before thirty (30) days after the effective date of the final Order. Further, that if Respondent fails to pay the entire amount of the civil penalty on or before thirty days following the effective date of the Registrar’s final Order, the Registrar may revoke Respondent’s license, effective on such deadline date. No future license shall be issued to any entity consisting of persons associated with Respondent, as defined in Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1101(A)(7), unless Respondent tenders payment of any outstanding prior civil penalty.

Pursuant to Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 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 11, 2025.

/s/ Kay Abramsohn

Administrative Law Judge

Transmitted electronically to:

Tom Cole, Director

Registrar of Contractors

John Smith

[email redacted]

Blue River Builders LLC

DBA: Rudy Contracting

[email redacted]

Robin Fischer

[email redacted]

By: OAH Staff