ALJDEC - Licensing

2025A-02644-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2026-01-02

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

Scott Thrasher,

COMPLAINANT

v.

Painting Done By Angel's LLC

License No. ROC 337246 & ROC 348752

RESPONDENT

No. 2025A-02644-CHC-ROC

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION

HEARING: December 18, 2025

APPEARANCES: Complainant Scott Thrasher appeared on his own behalf. Nubia and Cesar Salas appeared on behalf of Respondent Painting Done by Angel’s LLC. Registrar of Contractors Investigator Robert Di Alto appeared via Google Meet.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Adam D. Stone

EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: Complainant’s Exhibits 1-15 were admitted into evidence.

_____________________________________________________________________

FINDINGS OF FACT

Painting Done By Angels (Respondent) is the holder of License Nos. 337246 and 348752 issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (Registrar).

On or about January 23, 2025, Complainant hired Respondent to paint his residence in Scottsdale, Arizona.

On or about March 15, 2025, the Registrar received a Complaint against Respondent from Complainant alleging poor work with respect to project.

The Registrar assigned the complaint to Investigator Robert Di Alto. The jobsite inspection was performed on April 15, 2025.

Investigator Di Alto then issued a Written Directive on or about April 22, 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 05/09/2025.

. . .

DIRECTIVE REQUIREMENTS

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

Complaint Item: 1 - Previous contract, scope of work & debris, waste and materials have not been cleaned/disposed of from texture project.

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. The painting stage of the project has not been started as the smooth coating of the walls and ceilings is not complete.

Respondent shall complete project per original contract agreement, properly executed change orders, verbal agreements, and manufacturer’s installation instructions.

Governing Rule: Workmanship Rule: ARS §32-1154 (A)(8): Failure in a material respect by the licensee to complete a construction project or operation for the price stated in the contract, or in any modification of the contract.

ITEMS NOT REQUIRING CORRECTION

The following complaint items require no action by the Respondent:

Complaint Item: 2 - See ROC complaint ID: 2025-02639 for amplifying information

Investigator’s Observation: Unverified. The complaint item does not allege a workmanship issue that can be evaluated by the Registrar. No further action required by Respondent.

Governing Rule: Not Applicable

Complaint Item: 3 - Previous contract abandoned, current contract never commenced, but funds retained

Investigator’s Observation: Unverified. The Registrar does not have jurisdiction over financial matters. No further action required by the Respondent.

Governing Rule: Not Applicable

Complaint Item: 4 - Painting materials stored improperly as per verbal and written agreement

Investigator’s Observation: Unverified. The complaint item does not allege a workmanship issue that can be evaluated by the Registrar. No further action required by Respondent.

Governing Rule: Not Applicable. . .

On May 14, 2025, both Assistant Chief of Investigations Daniel Edwards performed a Compliance Inspection, and issued his Compliance Notes as follows:

. . .

Compliance Findings:

At the compliance inspection, ROC record affirms that no work ordered in the directive for this case was initiated and all directive items remain incomplete. . .

On September 30, 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(B); A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(8); and A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22).

On or about October 5, 2025, Respondent submitted an Answer to the Registrar.

On or about November 13, 2025, a Notice of Hearing was issued setting a hearing on December 18, 2025, at the Office of Administrative Hearings, an independent state agency.

At hearing, Investigator Di Alto testified as to the Registrar’s involvement and the above timeline and findings. Investigator Di Alto also testified that while Respondent requested an extension to complete the corrective work, he did not grant the same and he believed that the time period to complete the Directive was sufficient.

Complainant testified simply that they paid a total of $9,640.00 between the two contracts, and that the work was not completed. Complainant also testified that there was no denial of access and despite Respondent’s claim that the corrective work had been completed, it was not. Complainant testified that he was also seeking restitution.

Nubia Salas testified that it was impossible to comply with this Directive while the other complaint was still ongoing. Further, Ms. Salas testified that while there was no denial of access per se, it was inconvenient for her to use the backdoor entrance rather than the front door, and there was a hostile work environment.

Administrative notice was taken of Respondent’s prior License record on January 2, 2026. Such prior License record reflected that Respondent’s License Nos. 337246 and 348752 was first issued on March 18, 2022, and November 17, 2023, respectively. License number 337246 reflected that there were two open cases, one of which was the present 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(B), as Respondent did not use its diligence in performing the task of paining the house.

The preponderance of the evidence established that Respondent did not materially complete the project in violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(8).

The preponderance of the evidence established that the project remained incomplete. 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).

Finally, the tribunal declines to award restitution in this manner, as Complainant would have several other avenues to pursue the same, namely through the Registrar’s Recovery Fund or a civil judicial action.

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. 337246 and 348752 for two business days.

It is further recommended that the Registrar require Respondent to pay the sum of $200.00 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, January 2, 2026.

/s/ Adam D. Stone

Administrative Law Judge

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

Tom Cole, Director

Registrar of Contractors

Painting Done By Angel's LLC

[email redacted]

[email redacted]

Scott Thrasher

[email redacted]

By: OAH Staff