ALJDEC - Licensing
2025A-02115-NPC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2025-07-24
IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
Done Rite Services LLC,
COMPLAINANT
v.
T. COFFEE CONSTRUCTION LLC
License No. ROC 344425,
RESPONDENT
No. 2025A-02115-NPC-ROC
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION
HEARING: July 9, 2025
APPEARANCES:
Complainant: Jordan Benjamin
Respondent: No Appearance
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Nedra-Su Kawasaki
EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: Administrative notice was taken of the Notice of Hearing and Hearing Packet submitted by the Registrar of Contractors.
_____________________________________________________________________
FINDINGS OF FACT
T. Coffee Construction LLC (Respondent) was the holder of License No. 344425, issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (Registrar) on April 14, 2023.
On March 3, 2025, Done Rite Services, LLC (Complainant) filed a written complaint with the Registrar for failure of Respondent to pay three invoices (45636215; 45587461; and 45489027) for work performed between November 4, 2024 and November 12, 2024 totaling $4,193.00.
The Registrar issued a Citation on April 14, 2025, charging Respondent with a violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(10), requiring a written response from Respondent by April 29, 2025.
On April 28, 2025, Respondent filed a written answer to the citation requesting a dismissal on the alleged grounds that there was no contract between Complainant and Respondent and no authorized signature by Respondent.
On May 13, 2025, the Registrar denied the request to dismiss.
The Registrar issued a Notice of Hearing, setting a hearing at 3:00 p.m. on July 9, 2025. The Registrar mailed copies of the Notice of Hearing and hearing packet to all parties at their addresses and email addresses of record. A May 29, 2025 order 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 9, 2025.
Respondent did not request that the hearing be 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.
Complainant appeared and testified as to the facts of his complaint.
Complainant had a prior and ongoing working relationship with Respondent whereby Respondent hired/contracted with Complainant to provide services.
As part of the ongoing working relationship, it was standard operating procedure for the Complainant to provide a written estimate on Respondent’s request for a proposed scope of work. It was normal practice for Respondent to accept the estimate via telephone call to Complainant’s office. After completion of the work, Complainant would obtain a signature of acknowledgment from Respondent, or any individual on the jobsite representing Respondent. If no one was available to sign, Complainant provided pictures of the completed work to Respondent.
On October 28, 2024, Respondent accepted Complainant’s estimate via telephone call received by Complainant’s office staff. Subsequently, the work was performed and invoiced (#45489027) by Complainant on November 4, 2024 in the amount of $2,054.00.
On November 5, 2024, Respondent accepted Complainant’s estimate via telephone call received by Complainant’s office manager. Subsequently, the work was performed and invoiced (#45587461) by Complainant on November 6, 2024 in the amount of $750.00.
On November 7, 2024, Respondent accepted Complainant’s estimate via telephone call received by Complainant’s office manager. Subsequently, the work was performed and invoiced (#45636215) by Complainant on November 12, 2024 in the amount of $1,389.00.
At the hearing, Complainant testified that the current amount owed was $4,340.00, including late fees.
The principal amount owed was $4,193.00.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The copies of the Notice of Hearing that the Registrar mailed to Respondent at its address and email address of record were reasonable and Respondent is deemed to have received notice of the hearing.
The burden of proof at an administrative hearing falls to the party asserting a claim, right, or entitlement and the standard of proof on all issues in these matters is 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.”
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(10) includes among the grounds for suspension, revocation, or other disciplinary action against a contractor’s license,
failure by a licensee or agent or official of a licensee to pay monies in excess of $750 when due for materials or services rendered in connection with the licensee's operations as a contractor unless the licensee proves that the licensee lacks the capacity to pay and has not received sufficient monies as payment for the particular construction work project or operation for which the services or materials were rendered or purchased.
The preponderance of the evidence established that Complainant and Respondent demonstrated a working relationship with a standard operating procedure such that on Respondent’s request Complainant provided an estimate for a scope of work, on Respondent’s acceptance of said estimate, via telephone call to Complainant’s office, Complainant completed the work and invoiced Respondent, and Respondent paid the invoice.
Here, Complainant followed the established standard operating procedure resulting in the three invoices at issue. However, Respondent failed to pay the invoices and provided only an unsworn Answer in its defense.
Therefore, Complainant established that Respondent violated Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(10) by failing to pay Complainant $4,193.00 for work completed in connection with Respondent’s contracting business.
Based on Respondent’s violation of the provisions of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(10), grounds exist to impose discipline against Respondent’s license.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Based on the foregoing, it is recommended that the Registrar suspend Respondent’s License No. 344425 issued by the Registrar until it has provided to the Registrar, and the Registrar has accepted, documents that establish it has paid Complainant $4,193.00 in certified funds.
It is further recommended that when and if the Respondent receives and accepts Respondent’s evidence that it has paid Complainant $4,193.00 in certified funds, the Registrar may close the Complaint in Case No. 2025-02115.
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, July 24, 2025.
/s/ Nedra-Su Kawasaki
Administrative Law Judge
Transmitted by either mail, e-mail, or facsimile to:
Tom Cole, Director
Registrar of Contractors
[email redacted]
T. COFFEE CONSTRUCTION LLC
[email redacted]
Done Rite Services LLC
[email redacted]
By: OAH Staff