ALJDEC - Licensing

2025A-02639-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2025-12-08

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

Scott Thrasher,

COMPLAINANT,

v.

Painting Done By Angel's LLC,

License No. ROC 337246,

RESPONDENT.

No. 2025A-02639-CHC-ROC

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION

HEARING: October 29, 2025

APPEARANCES:

Complainant: Scott and Griselda Thrasher

Respondent: Taylor Barlow, Esq.

Nubia and Cesar Salas

Registrar of Contractors: Daniel Edwards, Assistant Chief of Investigations

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Nedra-Su Kawasaki

EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: Administrative notice was taken of the Notice of Hearing Packet submitted by the Registrar of Contractors.

Complainant Exhibits 1-17

Respondent Exhibits 1-5

_____________________________________________________________________

FINDINGS OF FACT

Painting Done By Angel's LLC (Respondent) was the holder of License No. 037622 issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (Registrar) on March 18, 2022.

On or about February 17, 2025, Scott and Griselda Thrasher (Complainant) entered into a contract with Respondent for, among other things, interior drywall smooth finish.

On or about March 15, 2025, Complainant filed a Licensed Complaint Form with the Registrar, claiming abandonment and poor work.

The Registrar assigned the complaint to Investigator Robert Di Alto, who issued a Jobsite Inspection Notice on March 21, 2025, scheduling the inspection for April 15, 2025.

Investigator Di Alto conducted the jobsite inspection on April 15, 2025, and Respondent was present. Following the inspection, Investigator Di Alto issued a Written Directive From the Registrar to Respondent on April 22, 2025, that provided as follows:

You are directed to remedy the following violations by the appropriate means:

Complaint Item: 1 - The worksite has not been cleaned up and is abandoned (post payment). Toxic dust and debris remain throughout the home.

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. At the time of this inspection I observed what appears to be incomplete interior drywall finish work. Painter’s plastic and masking is in place and debris from sanding is present throughout the entire residence. Respondent shall complete project per original contract agreement, properly executed change orders, verbal agreements, and manufacturers’ installation instructions. *NOTE: The Registrar makes no determination as to the toxicity of joint/topping compound dust, or abandonment by the Respondent.

On April 16, 2025, Investigator Di Alto issued a warning letter to Respondent for aiding and abetting an unlicensed contractor, specifically, Cruz Ozuna, DBA Ozuna’s Drywall.

The Written Directive required Respondent to notify Investigator Di Alto of Respondent’s compliance with the directive prior to 5:00 p.m. on May 9, 2025.

On May 5, 2025, Respondent requested an extension for compliance with the Written Directive. Investigator Di Alto denied the request.

On May 6, 2025, Investigator Di Alto issued a Compliance Inspection Notice, setting the inspection for May 14, 2025. During the inspection, Compliance Item 1 was deemed not completed.

On May 23, 2025, the Registrar issued a Citation against Respondent, finding cause to charge Respondent with violations of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely R4-9-108(A); A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(9)(a); and A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22).

Respondent submitted an Answer to the Citation on June 5, 2025. Respondent’s Answer asserted it was seeking legal representation and requested an extension of time to submit an answer to the Citation.

The Registrar referred the matter to the Office of Administrative Hearings, an independent state agency, for an evidentiary hearing.

On June 23, 2025, the Registrar issued a Notice of Hearing on Contested Case setting the hearing for July 29, 2025.

On July 29, 2025, at the time of the scheduled hearing, all parties appeared. However, Investigator Di Alto experienced technical difficulties which prevented him from viewing the submitted exhibits and his files. Additionally, Respondent advised that Complainant’s prehearing disclosure statement and exhibits were not received by Respondent. It was confirmed that Complainant’s exhibits were emailed to an incorrect email address for Respondent’s attorney. The correct email address was provided. Accordingly, the hearing was continued to September 19, 2025.

On or about September 18, 2025, Respondent requested that the hearing be continued because Investigator Di Alto was unavailable.

On or about September 18, 2025, the parties were notified the hearing was continued to October 29, 2025. The order granting the continuance from the Office of Administrative Hearings advised the parties how to connect to the hearing via Google Meet.

The hearing was held via Google Meet on October 29, 2025.

Assistant Chief Edwards testified as to Investigator Di Alto’s records of his jobsite inspection findings, the Written Directive, compliance inspection findings, and the Citation. On questioning, Assistant Chief Edwards testified that Investigator Di Alto had received an email from Respondent requesting an extension of the directive compliance deadline. In the email, Respondent addressed concerns and difficulties Respondent had completing the corrective work because the worksite environment had become hostile, specifically noting Complainant constantly walked throughout the worksite, requested additional work be done that was not in the contract nor the directive, and “kept putting blue tape everywhere”, hindering Respondent’s ability to fully comply with the directive. Assistant Chief Edwards also testified that he did not find anything in Investigator Di Alto’s files to support the claim that Investigator Di Alto had instructed Respondent to stop contacting the Investigator’s supervisor. In fact, there was nothing in the file to suggest the case was escalated to Investigator Di Alto’s supervisor, and Assistant Chief Edwards was Investigator Di Alto’s supervisor.

Complainant testified that the contract, negotiated through text messages, was written for a level 5 smooth finish drywall. Complainant testified that on February 24, 2025, Respondent advised Complainant the project was completed. On February 25, 2025, after walking through with Respondent, Complainant did not believe the project was complete and Respondent agreed. Complainant further testified that at some time between February 24 and March 4, 2025, Respondent’s subcontractor had an emergency and could not finish so Respondent advised that Mr. Salas would finish the work. Complainant testified the contract was paid in full prior to completion of the project. On March 10, 2025, Complainant sent Respondent a text message including photos of the project to discuss concerns. On March 11, 2025, Respondent came to clean up outside the home, despite not being asked to. Complainant testified that Respondent took all their tools with them. Complainant asked if Respondent would return later in the week to complete the work and Respondent informed Complainant a contract addendum would be made. Complainant testified that on March 12, 2025, Complainant received a proposed addendum from Respondent.

Respondent entered into the record a recorded phone conversation between Investigator Di Alto and Mrs. Salas. In the recording, Mrs. Salas advised Investigator Di Alto, “We finished the first complaint,” and reiterated the difficulty Respondent experienced in trying to complete the project and directive. Mrs. Salas expressed concern about the “second complaint” because it had become clear that the parties could not continue to work together to complete the second contract. Mrs. Salas asked for an extension of time to complete the second directive due to the inability to resolve the issues. Investigator Di Alto explained that it was unnecessary to extend the compliance period on the second complaint until it became clear whether Complainant was moving forward with the second contract or terminating it. If Complainant terminated the contract, the second complaint would be dismissed. When discussing the compliance inspection for the complaint at issue, Investigator Di Alto told Respondent that the compliance inspection did not require Respondent to be present, and he did not feel comfortable with Complainant and Respondent being in the same room.

Mr. Salas testified that there was hostility from Mrs. Thrasher toward Respondent throughout the project while Respondent was working. While the drywall was still being installed, Mrs. Thrasher would place blue tape on the wall. Mr. Salas explained that the blue tape sticks to the new drywall and pulls it off when removed. The morning after each workday there was more blue tape on the walls. Mr. Salas explained further that when the project is completed the customer is given the opportunity to “blue tape” areas of correction, but it is disruptive during the process. Mr. Salas further testified it was Respondent’s understanding of the directive that only cleaning up the project was required, because the complaint item read, “The worksite has not been cleaned up and is abandoned (post payment). Toxic dust and debris remain throughout the home.” Therefore, Respondent cleaned up the home per the directive, but the compliance inspection found fault with workmanship. On questioning, Mr. Salas testified that it was a mistake on Respondent’s part that the contract stated a “level 5 finish,” as the agreement was only a Level 3 smooth finish.

Administrative notice was taken of Respondent’s prior License record on October 29, 2025. According to that record, Respondent’s License No. 337246 was Active; and there were two open complaints (both related to instant matter), no disciplined cases, and no resolved/settled complaints against Respondent’s license.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

This matter lies within the Registrar’s jurisdiction.

Complainant bears the burden of proof to establish Respondent’s statutory violations by a preponderance of the evidence. Respondent bears the burden of proof to establish an affirmative defense 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.”

The contention and hostility between the parties and the difficulty it caused Respondent in completing the project is noted. However, the issues here are whether Respondent failed to perform work in a workmanlike manner and whether Respondent subsequently failed to take appropriate corrective action following a written directive. At the time of the jobsite inspection, the project was not complete. Investigator Di Alto stated in the Jobsite Inspection Notes, that he “cannot determine complaint item constitutes poor work due to job being incomplete.” Mr. Salas testified it was his belief that the directive only required clean up; however, Investigator Di Alto observed, “what appears to be incomplete interior drywall finish work” and ordered that “Respondent shall complete project per original contract agreement, properly executed change orders, verbal agreements, and manufacturers’ installation instructions.”

Additionally, despite the difficulties Respondent faced in working with Complainant, Mrs. Salas advised Investigator Di Alto that “[Respondent] finished the first complaint” and further discussed scheduling the Compliance inspection.

The preponderance of the evidence established that Respondent failed to perform all work in a professional and workmanlike manner in violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(A).

The preponderance of the evidence 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).

No evidence was presented to support the charge of violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(9)(a), aiding and abetting a licensed or unlicensed person. Therefore, it was not established that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(9)(a).

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Based on the foregoing, it is recommended that on the effective date of the Order, the Registrar shall suspend for one business day Respondent’s License No. 337246.

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, December 8, 2025.

/s/ Nedra-Su Kawasaki

Administrative Law Judge

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

Tom Cole, Director

Registrar of Contractors

Robert Di alto, Investigator

Registrar of Contractors

[email redacted]

Taylor J. Barlow Esq.

DAVIS MILES

[email redacted]

Scott Thrasher

[email redacted]

Painting Done By Angel's LLC

[email redacted]

[email redacted]

By: OAH Staff