ALJDEC - Licensing

2025A-02134-NPC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2025-07-23

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

Copper State Materials, LLC,

COMPLAINANT,

v.

Hacienda Builders, LLC,

License No. ROC 332914,

RESPONDENT.

No. 2025A-02134-NPC-ROC

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION

HEARING: July 8, 2025

APPEARANCES: Stephen Fuller appeared on behalf of Complainant Copper State Materials, LLC. Paul Sweeney appeared on behalf of Respondent Hacienda Builders, LLC.

Witnesses: Joey Kinser, Jessica Fuller, Levi Burlington, Tyler Fuller

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Sondra J. Vanella

EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: Complainant Copper State Materials, LLC’s Exhibits 1, 3, 7, and 11; Administrative Notice taken of Agency Record

FINDINGS OF FACT

Hacienda Builders, LLC (“Respondent”) is the holder of License Number 332914 issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (“Registrar”).

In or about March 2025, Copper State Materials, LLC (“Complainant”) filed a Complaint against Respondent with the Registrar alleging that Respondent had failed to pay Complainant the sum of $17,724.00 for the performance of electrical work, grading, and the provision of materials for a project located at 1025 Stone Hollow Loop, in Williams, Arizona.

The parties were unable to resolve their differences. The Registrar issued a Citation against Respondent for its alleged violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(10).

Stephen Fuller, Qualifying Party and co-owner of Complainant, testified that initially, on or about November 1, 2024, Paul Sweeney, Respondent’s owner, contacted Complainant by phone to request that Complainant perform the grading and electrical work for the project. The parties’ verbal contract was for grading and electrical work only and Mr. Fuller testified that it was a time and materials contract. The parties did not have a written contract. Complainant cut 150 cubic yards on the east side of the property to be used for back fill.

Mr. Fuller testified that Respondent added to Complainant’s scope of work including the removal and replacement of a water line because the existing one was not deep enough. Complainant performed this work, back filled the trench, and installed a joint trench for the water and gas lines.

Mr. Fuller testified that thereafter, Respondent again added to the scope of work including the installation of the sub base for pavers, as well as “fine.” Respondent further requested that a gas line be installed on the back patio, a pine tree and a juniper tree be removed, and the slope be cut farther back. This work was completed on November 26, 2024.

Mr. Fuller credibly testified that Complainant had three loads of ABC (paver subbase), one load of Fines, 88 linear feet of conduit delivered and installed, the gas line was installed, the sewer pump was installed, but not hooked up, the grading was performed, and the above ground gas valves and fittings were completed. Mr. Fuller further testified that Complainant also hauled a tree off the property and did not charge Respondent for this work. According to the City Manager of Williams, the Certificate of Occupancy was issued with no code deficiencies.

On December 17, 2024, Complainant sent Respondent an invoice for the work it had performed up to that date, in the amount of $17,734.00.

It was only after Complainant filed the instant Complaint that Respondent asserted that the parties’ contract amount was $11,000.00. Mr. Fuller credibly testified that the parties had not ever discussed a contract price of $11,000.00. Mr. Fuller testified that Respondent never asked Complainant to cure any deficiencies, and Respondent did not file a complaint against Complainant with the Registrar.

Joey Kinser, the individual who dug the sewer line and performed the final grade for Complainant, testified at hearing. Mr. Kinser testified that he has twelve years of experience in grading. Mr. Kinser testified that he cut the slope at the end of November 2024, and that when he left the project, drainage was flowing away from the house and the finish grade met code requirements.

Jessica Fuller, co-owner of Complainant, testified that a contract price of $11,000.00 had never been discussed. Ms. Fuller testified that she sent Respondent the December 17, 2024 invoice and that they spoke one time thereafter. During that conversation Mr. Sweeney stated that he “had a problem with the invoice” and she told him to speak with Mr. Fuller. Mr. Sweeney mentioned that he would pay cash for a lesser amount.

Levi Burlington, who lives three lots down from the jobsite, testified that he worked at the jobsite for “a couple of days” for Complainant, performing the finish work with the grinder pump, the conduit, and backfilling. Mr. Burlington testified that the sewer pump did not need a riser, that he “hooked up the controller and ran conduit to finish it out.” Mr. Burlington testified that he completed the work on the sewer pump.

Tyler Fuller testified that she logged 38 hours on the job and performed the grading work on the west side of the property. Ms. Fuller testified that Mr. Sweeney was only on site “a few times,” and that she did not receive any complaints regarding poor workmanship or incomplete work.

Respondent failed to pay Complainant until June 25, 2025, when Respondent paid $7,930.77.

Mr. Sweeney testified that on November 1, 2024, he spoke with Mr. Fuller and they discussed the entire scope of work, and that Mr. Fuller agreed to perform the work for $11,000.00. Thereafter, Mr. Fuller began work on the project. Mr. Sweeney testified that when he received the December 17, 2024 invoice, he called Mr. Fuller, they got into an argument, and “it escalated from there.” Mr. Sweeney did not dispute that Complainant performed the work for which it invoiced Respondent. Rather, Mr. Sweeney disputed the amount of the invoice. Mr. Sweeney testified that Respondent “never” agrees to a time and materials contract and that Complainant agreed to a contract price of $11,000.00.

Mr. Sweeney testified that he asked Complainant to “fix the grading” and Complainant refused until the invoice was paid. Mr. Sweeney testified that Complainant left a tree stump and tracks and that Complainant would not return to complete the work.

Mr. Sweeney testified that he “is not disputing workmanship” and is only disputing the grading not being completed and the sewer pump not being connected.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

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 this matter 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.”

A.R.S. § 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 credible and probative evidence established that Respondent continues to owe a total of $9,803.23 for the services and materials provided by Complainant. This amount is calculated by subtracting the amount paid by Respondent ($7,930.77) from the invoice amount of $17,734.00. Respondent failed to establish that it lacked the capacity to pay Complainant and that it has not received sufficient monies as payment for the project for which the services or materials were rendered or purchased.

Therefore, Complainant established that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(10) by failing to pay Complainant $9,803.23 for services or materials rendered in connection with Respondent’s contracting business.

Based upon Respondent’s violation of the provisions of A.R.S. § 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 Number 332914 issued by the Registrar until it has provided to the Registrar, and the Registrar has accepted, documents that establish that it has paid Complainant $9,803.23 in certified funds.

It is further recommended that when and if the Registrar receives and accepts Respondent’s evidence that it has paid Complainant $9,803.23 in certified funds, the Registrar may close the Complaint in Case Number 2025-02134.

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 23, 2025.

/s/ Sondra J. Vanella

Administrative Law Judge

Transmitted by either mail, e-mail, or facsimile to:

Tom Cole, Director

Registrar of Contractors

Hacienda Builders, LLC

[email redacted]

Copper State Materials, LLC

DBA: Copper State Site Services

[email redacted]

By: OAH Staff