ALJDEC - Licensing
2025A-02467-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2025-07-12
IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
Staci Langford
COMPLAINANT,
v.
JPR Custom Flooring Installations LLC
License No. ROC 280068,
RESPONDENT.
No. 2025A-02467-CHC-ROC
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION
HEARING: July 2, 2025
APPEARANCES: Staci Langford (hereinafter “Complainant”) appeared on behalf of herself. Jesse Ruiz (hereinafter “Respondent”) appeared on behalf of JPR Custom Flooring Installations LLC.
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Velva Moses-Thompson
_____________________________________________________________________
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. On or about August 20, 2023, Complainant and Respondent entered into a contract, wherein Respondent would remodel Complainant’s residence for the amount of $11,734.00.
2. Complainant paid Respondent in full pursuant to the contract.
4. On or about August 30, 2023, Respondent started work.
5. On or about October 4, 2023, Respondent stopped work.
6. On or about March 18, 2025, the Registrar received a complaint from Complainant alleging poor work on the part of Respondent.
7. The Registrar assigned the complaint to one of its investigators, Doug Barrett (hereinafter “Investigator Barrett”).
8. On March 31, 2025, Investigator Barrett conducted a job-site inspection.
9. On March 31, 2025, the Registrar issued a Directive to Respondent requiring that Respondent correct Complaint Items 1 and 2, by appropriate means, not later than 5:00 p.m. on April 24, 2025. The March 31, 2024 Directive provided, in relevant part, as follows:
You are directed to remedy the following violations by the appropriate means:
Complaint Item: 1 - After LVP flooring was installed, major issues started to
occur throughout the house: gaps, planks rising and falling.
Investigator’s Observation: Verified. I observed the LVP flooring
throughout the home. There were several areas with planks separating and
peaking. The floor levelness revealed a 1/4" variance over ten feet, which is the
max allowable by the manufacturer. The perimeter of the flooring was pinched
by the baseboards throughout and was sealed with caulking. Some of the
caulking had been removed by the respondent which caused damage to the
flooring and baseboards. The manufacture requires 1/4” for expansion at door
jambs and the perimeter, which was not observed. The manufacture requires
3/8" for expansion for every 20 feet in length and width, which was not observed. A T-molding is also required by the manufacturer if the length or
width is greater than 40 feet. The project area was greater than 40 feet and no
T-molding was installed. The contractor should correct the flooring and base
boards throughout the entire home by appropriate means and per the
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
Complaint Item: 2 - Caulking was removed which caused damage to the
bottom of many baseboards
Investigator’s Observation: Verified. I observed damage to the baseboards
throughout the home from the caulking being removed. I also observed damage
to the floor planks from the caulking being removed as well. Contractor should
correct by appropriate means.
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
10. Respondent did not correct the items listed in the Directive.
11. The matter was referred to the Office of Administrative Hearings for an evidentiary rehang.
12. A hearing was held on July 2, 2025.
13. At hearing, Complainant testified on behalf of herself and presented the testimony of her husband, Brandon Langford. Jessie Ruiz testified on behalf of Respondent.
Testimony of Investigator Barrett
14. Investigator Barrett was unable to verify that the damage to the floor was caused by the installation of the entertainment center, because several other areas throughout the home were not installed according to the manufacturer’s installation instructions. Additionally, Mr. Ruiz admitted to Investigator Barrett in a phone call on April 9, 2025 that the floor was not installed according to the manufacturer’s instructions.
Testimony of Complainant
15. Respondent improperly installed floors in her home. Complainant’s deficient floors were not the cause of the entertainment center. Complainant hired a contractor named Chris Larson to install cabinetry in her home e a couple of months after the floor were installed. Mr. Larson frequently tripped on the floor and noticed gaps and broken planks in the floor before the entertainment center was installed. Complainant disputed that the installation of cabinetry and the entertainment center voided the warranty that she received from Respondent.
Testimony of Brandon Langford
16. A individual named “Blake” from Republic Flooring informed Mr. Langford
that the installation of an entertainment center would not cause the problems that existed with Complainant’s floors.
Testimony of Jesse Ruiz
17. Mr. Ruiz stated that he gave a warranty to Complainant that provided that the installation of cabinetry or an entertainment center would void the warranty on the floors. However, Mr. Ruiz did not provide written evidence of such a warranty. Mr. Ruiz did not obtain a signed written waiver from Complaint that included an explanation that her floors might be damaged if an entertainment center or cabinetry were installed on the floor.
18. Administrative notice is taken of the Registrar’s public website. According to the information available on the website on July 12, 2025, Respondent’s license was first issued on March 15, 2023, and is active. Such prior License record also shows that there is only one open complaint against Respondent. Respondent’s license has never been disciplined. The lack of prior discipline taken is considered a mitigating factor in imposing discipline.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
This matter lies within the ROC’s jurisdiction. See Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1101 et seq.
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. See Ariz. Admin. Code R2-19-119.
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).
4. The Administrative Law Judge may consider the ROC’s administrative record. See Ariz. Admin. Code § R4-9-118.
5. The preponderance of the evidence shows that the issues found by Investigator Barrett in connection with the floor installation project demonstrate, that Respondent failed to perform work in a professional and workmanlike manner, which is a violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely Ariz. Admin. Code R4-9-108(A).
7. The preponderance of the evidence shows that Respondent failed to
correct the items listed in the Registrar’s Directive without valid justification, which is a violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 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 JPR Custom Flooring Installations LLC’s license number 280068 for one day. It is further recommended that the Registrar require Respondent to pay the sum of $250.00 as a civil penalty pursuant to Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 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 Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 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 12, 2025.
/s/ Velva Moses-Thompson
Administrative Law Judge
Transmitted by either mail, e-mail, or facsimile to:
Tom Cole, Director
Registrar of Contractors
Staci Langford
[email redacted]
JPR Custom Flooring Installations LLC
[email redacted]
By: OAH Staff