ALJDEC - Licensing
2025A-02328-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2025-07-28
IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
Dina Schulsinger,
COMPLAINANT
v.
Classic Treasures LLC,
License No. ROC 330089,
RESPONDENT
No. 2025A-02328-CHC-ROC
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION
HEARING: July 14, 2025
APPEARANCES: Jimmy Taus appeared on behalf of Complainant Dina Schulsinger. Johnny Green appeared on behalf of Respondent Classic Treasures LLC. Registrar of Contractors Investigator Charles Riddlehoover appeared via Google Meet.
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Adam D. Stone
EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE:
_____________________________________________________________________
FINDINGS OF FACT
Classic Treasures LLC (Respondent) is the holder of License No. 330089 issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (Registrar).
On or about June 3, 2024, Complainant hired Respondent to lay AstroTurf in her backyard in Scottsdale, Arizona. The total contract price was $4,900.00 and Complainant paid $3,250.00
On or about March 7, 2025, the Registrar received a Complaint against Respondent from Complainant alleging poor work with respect to project.
The Registrar assigned the complaint to Investigator Charles Riddlehoover. The jobsite inspection was performed on April 3, 2025.
Investigator Riddlehoover then issued a Written Directive on or about April 7, 2025, which provided in pertinent part as follows:
After investigation, the Registrar determined that you failed to meet the requirements of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A), and now issues this Directive requiring you to take appropriate corrective action. Failure to comply with this Directive constitutes a violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22) and may result in the issuance of a citation, discipline of your license, and a civil penalty pursuant to A.R.S. § 32-1154(E) of up to $500.00. You must notify the Registrar’s assigned Investigator of your compliance with this Directive prior to 5:00 p.m. on Wednesday, April 30, 2025.
. . .
DIRECTIVE REQUIREMENTS
You are directed to remedy the following violations by the appropriate means:
Complaint Item: 1 - I would like a refund. Tried 4x to do it. Using cheap labor and inferior product.
Investigator’s Observation: During our inspection it appeared the Respondent did not correctly prep prior setting pavers, the artificial turf was not installed per manufacture specifications, the turf was installed above the surface of the pavers and creating a tripping hazard. The Respondent also used pieces of artificial turf not cut to the correct size for each area. Turf is rolling up and pulling away from lack of 6" nails.
Respondent shall complete project per original contract agreement, properly executed change orders, verbal agreements, local building codes and manufacturers installation instructions.
Governing Rule: 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.
A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) - R4-9-108(A) Workmanship
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 such 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.
The ROC does not require the project to be completed by the completion date, and only requires an estimated completion date be listed in the contract. However, if a completion date is listed in the contract, this could be a breach of contract violation, which could be pursued in a civil venue.
The ROC has no jurisdiction over good customer service, to include communication. This is the most common complaint, and while no corrective order can be given, the Respondent should consider the long term effect of this practice...
On March 19, 2025, the Registrar issued a Citation against Respondent, charging possible violations of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(A); and A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22).
On or about May 16, Respondent submitted an Answer to the Registrar.
On or about May 28, 2025, a Notice of Hearing was issued setting a hearing on July 14, 2025, at the Office of Administrative Hearings, an independent state agency.
At hearing, Investigator Riddlehoover testified as to the Registrar’s involvement and the above timeline and findings.
Investigator Riddlehoover testified that at the jobsite inspection, Mr. Green informed him that he would be on vacation, thus he provided additional time to complete the Directive. Further, Investigator Riddlehoover testified that that on April 24, 2025, Mr. Green inquired about further extending the Directive, however, he declined to do the same as no progress had been made.
In addition, Investigator Riddlehoover testified that he believed there was enough time for Respondent to complete the corrective work and did not believe there was any denial of access to the premises by Complainant.
Complainant testified that once the Directive was issued she spoke with Mr. Green about the dates he would be coming to work and she made sure the gate was unlocked. Complainant testified however, that there was one time which Mr. Green appeared at the jobsite, without notifying her first, and the gate was locked. However, once she became aware of the same she called her husband to come and make sure the gate was unlocked.
Mr. Green testified repeatedly that he was denied access due to the gate being locked on April 26, 2025. Further Mr. Green testified that he did not believe that the work performed was in violation of workmanship standards, rather it was “incomplete” as Complainant had fired him and would not allow him to complete the project.
Administrative notice was taken of Respondent’s prior License record on July 28, 2025. Such prior License record reflected that Respondent’s License No. 330089 was first issued on August 7, 2020, and reflected that there was one open case, namely the present case, and one “Resolved/Settled” case.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
This matter lies within the Registrar’s jurisdiction. See A.R.S. § 32-1101 et seq.
Complainant bears the burden of proof to establish Respondent’s statutory violations by a preponderance of the evidence. See A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2); A.A.C. R2-19-119(A) and A.A.C. 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).
The preponderance of the evidence established that there was a violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(A), as the turf was not installed to the manufactures specification, creating a tripping hazard, and the turf was no cut to the correct size and was rolling up and pulling away due to the lack of six inch nails. While parts of the project were clearly incomplete, the work that was done, and paid for, was not within workmanship standards.
Finally, the preponderance of the evidence established Respondent failed to comply with the Written Directive. The tribunal finds that there was no denial of access as claimed by Mr. Green, as at a minimum, Mr. Green had from April 8 until April 25, to commence work on the project, and frankly, the same should have been completed by then. The greater weight of the evidence demonstrated that the gate was open when Mr. Green stated his workers would be there, and even when the gate was locked, Complainant ensure that the gate was immediately opened to allow Mr. Green to perform the work. Therefore, Complainant established that Respondent failed to take appropriate corrective action following a written directive from the Registrar in violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22).
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Based on the foregoing, it is recommended that on the effective date of the Order, the Registrar shall suspend Respondent’s License No. 330089 for a period of two days.
It is further recommended that the Registrar require Respondent to pay the sum of $250.00 as a civil penalty pursuant to A.R.S. § 32-1154(E).
It is further recommended 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 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 A.R.S. § 32-1101(A)(7), unless Respondent tenders payment of any outstanding prior civil penalty.
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 28, 2025.
/s/ Adam D. Stone
Administrative Law Judge
Transmitted by either mail, e-mail, or facsimile to:
Tom Cole, Director
Registrar of Contractors
Jimmy C. Taus
Law Offices Of Jimmy C. Taus, APC
[email redacted]
Classic Treasures LLC
[email redacted]
By: OAH Staff