ALJDEC - Licensing
2025A-02591-NPC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2025-07-18
IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
Jensen Enterprises Inc.,
COMPLAINANT
v.
Limen Terra LLC,
License No. ROC 355479,
RESPONDENT
No. 2025A-02591-NPC-ROC
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION
HEARING: June 20, 2025
APPEARANCES: Sandy Holly appeared on behalf of Jensen Enterprises Inc. (Complainant). No person appeared on behalf of Limen Terra LLC (Respondent).
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Kay A. Abramsohn
EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: Registrar Notice of Hearing packet (Packet) and Complainant’s exhibits.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Respondent is the holder of License No. 355479 issued by the Registrar of Contractors (Registrar) on November 6, 2024.
On March 13, 2025, the Registrar received from Complainant a Non-Payment Complaint Form alleging that Respondent had failed to pay Complainant for materials delivered in late 2024. In that Complaint, Complainant alleged that its invoice in the total amount of $19,320.81 remained unpaid.
On April 10, 2025, Registrar issued its Citation citing Respondent for alleged violation of Arizona Revised Statute (Ariz. Rev. Stat.) § 32-1154(A)(10), failure to pay monies in excess of $750.00 when due for services rendered.
On April 25, 2025, Respondent filed an Answer to the Citation indicating Respondent was not disputing the amount owed to Complainant, but asserted that it had an ongoing dispute with the developer that affected Respondent’s ability to pay.
The complaint was not resolved informally and the Registrar referred the matter to the Office of Administrative Hearings, an independent state agency, for an evidentiary hearing.
The Registrar issued a Notice of Hearing, setting a hearing on June 12, 2025. The Registrar mailed copies of the Notice of Hearing to Respondent at its address and email address of record.
The hearing was then continued to 1:00 p.m. on June 20, 2025. A June 13, 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 June 20, 2025.
Respondent did not request that the hearing be continued. Although the start of the hearing was delayed 10 minutes, Respondent did not appear through an authorized member, employee, or attorney. Consequently, Respondent did not present any evidence to defend its license.
Ms. Holly testified that, as of the date of the hearing, Respondent owed Complainant $19,320.81 for materials supplied. Ms. Holly stated Complainant had not heard from Respondent since filing the complaint.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
This matter lies within the Registrar’s jurisdiction and has been properly brought before OAH for adjudication.
The purpose of the Registrar’s licensing statutes is to protect the public from unscrupulous, unqualified, and financially irresponsible contractors.
The Registrar may resolve contractual disputes if such resolution is ancillary to its regulatory mission and may penalize a contractor’s license by ordering payment of restitution if a proven statutory violation was not remedied by corrective action.
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.
A preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.” A preponderance of the evidence is “[t]he 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.”
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(10) includes among the grounds for suspension, revocation, or other disciplinary action against a contractor’s license,
[f]ailure 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 hearing evidence established that Respondent was invoiced a total of $19,320.81 owed to Complainant for materials supplied.
Based on the hearing record, Complainant established that Respondent violated Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(10) by failing to pay Complainant $19,320.81 for materials obtained from Complainant in connection with Respondent’s contracting business.
Based upon 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, on the effective date of the Registrar’s final order, the Registrar suspend Respondent’s license until Respondent has provided to the Registrar, and the Registrar has accepted, documents that establish that Respondent has paid Complainant $19,320.81 in certified funds.
It is further recommended that when and if the Registrar does receive and accept Respondent’s evidence that Respondent has paid Complainant $19,320.81 in certified funds, the Registrar shall close the matter.
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 the outstanding $19,320.81 to Complainant.
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 18, 2025.
/s/ Kay A. Abramsohn
Administrative Law Judge
Transmitted by either mail, e-mail, or facsimile to:
Tom Cole, Director
Registrar of Contractors
Limen Terra LLC
[email redacted]
Jensen Enterprises Inc
[email redacted]
By: OAH Staff