ALJDEC - Licensing
2025A-02726-NPC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2025-07-03
IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
1st Run Electric LLC
COMPLAINANT,
v.
Design Build Custom Homes LLC
License No. ROC 342688,
RESPONDENT.
No. 2025A-02726-NPC-ROC
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION
HEARING: June 13, 2025
APPEARANCES: Ehren Litzenberger appeared on behalf of 1st Run Electric
LLC (hereinafter “Complainant”). Lisa Streu, Esq. appeared on behalf of Design Build Custom Homes LLC (hereinafter “Respondent”).
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Velva Moses-Thompson
EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: A1 and A2, B through D, H, G1 and G2, I, J, K, L, and V.
_____________________________________________________________________
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. In 2023, Respondent hired Complainant to provide new wire service for a custom home located at 9535 East Ranch Gate Road in Scottsdale, Arizona (hereinafter “the Radwick project”), for the amount of $54,696.91.
2. The contract required that changed orders be submitted in writing. See the administrative record of the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (hereinafter “Registrar” or “ROC”), pg. 31.
3. On August 1, 2024, Complainant started work.
4. Complainant last worked on the project on February 25, 2025.
5. Respondent paid Complainant $35,000 for the “rough in” work for the project.
5. On April 24, 2025, Complainant filed a complaint with the Registrar alleging that Respondent failed to pay Respondent $10,639.45 for labor and materials provided to Respondent for the Radwick project. See the invoices in the Registrar’s administrative record, pgs. 22-25 and pg.16.
6. On April 22, 2025, the Registrar issued a Citation against Respondent’s license alleging that Respondent had violated Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(10).
7. Respondent filed a timely answer to the Citation.
8. The matter was referred to the Office of Administrative Hearings for an evidentiary hearing.
9. A hearing was held on June 13, 2025.
10. Ehren Litzenberger, the owner of Complainant, testified on behalf of Complainant. Christopher Overtbrecht, the owner of Respondent and the manager of Respondent’s projects, testified on behalf of Respondent.
Testimony of Christopher Overtbrecht
11. Mr. Overtbrecht has worked in construction for 30 years. Prior to working for Respondent, Mr. Overtbrecht worked for a contracting company in Seattle, Washington, from 2006 to 2018 building custom homes. Mr. Overtbrecht worked for two other construction companies in Arizona before starting his own company.
Mr. Overtbrecht met Mr. Litzenberger in 2019.
12. Mr. Overtbrecht explained that the contract requires that written change orders be submitted before work is completed. Mr. Overtbrecht stated that he did not receive any change orders from Complainant during the time that he performed construction for Respondent. Mr. Litzenberger acknowledged that Complainant did not submit a written change order to Respondent until after Complainant was terminated from the job.
13. Mr. Overtbrecht explained that he received a bid from Complainant to perform electrical rough in and trim out for the Radwick project. Mr. Overtbrecht explained that electrical rough in is the part of work is installed just before the drywall.
14. Mr. Overtbrecht stated that Complainant was paid in full for the rough in work. Mr. Overtbrecht explained that rough in is performed after the framing in installed. Afterwards, workers come and in and pull all the wire – the lights are roughed in the outlets, the switches and all the wires are placed in the boxes. Trim out work is performed after the drywall and painting work. For example, the plumbers install decorative plates on and faucets.
15. Mr. Overtbrecht complained to Mr. Litzenberger that he was not present at the project. Mr. Overtbrecht stated that Complaint’s employee Hector was running crew and had to tell Complainant’s workers how to staple wires and pull wires which anyone who has done more than one day of electrical work should know. Mr. Overtbrecht alleged that Complainant’s workers were leaving a mess and eating on Mr. Overtbrecht’s work desk. Hector would not work with Mr. Overtbrecht regarding the location of the mirrors.
16. Mr. Overtbrecht complained that Complainant performed the following deficiencies:
Installed aluminum wire instead of copper wire which did not comply with the plans. The cost for aluminum wire only $4.00 per foot. The cost for copper wire is $28 per foot.
Caused damage to the wires in the home.
Staples were not installed per code.
Complainant left workers at the job who were not qualified.
Hector did not install the cam lights in the location where they should have been. They did not put up all the cans and they were not approved.
Installed fewer circuits at the island than required according to the packaging for the appliance.
Complainant pulled out the gray wires that were required to go into the conduit.
17. Mr. Overtbrecht stated that Respondent had to pay another contractor $2,100 to repair the following items:
Remove drywall in master bath, master shower, master bedroom, kitchen to feed new circuit to fridge (patch and paint by others)
Rewire fridge and freezer so that they are on their own circuit
Add smoke detector at great room ceiling per plan.
Relocate smoke detector in bedroom 2 so that it’s more than 3 feet from return.
Supply and install gas bond from Main SES to gas meter.
Remove drywall to feed craft room with power. (patch and paint by others)
[See Exhibit V].
Testimony of Ehren Litzenberger
18. Mr. Litzenberger stated that Complainant should be paid for change orders that were made based upon items that needed to be addressed and changed during construction. During cross-examination, Mr. Litzenberger acknowledged that the contract required written change orders. However, Mr. Litzenberger stated that changes to the contract were made in good faith based on his relationship with Respondent. Mr. Litzenberger testified that Complainant kept record of the changes and the additions that were not on the bids and the plan set. However, Mr. Litzenberger also testified during hearing that Respondent never provided him with a copy of the plans.
19. Mr. Litzenberger alleged that Complainant built a wellness room that included framing. Mr. Litzenberger alleged that Complainant had to perform additional electrical work and move an air conditioning unit in the home. Mr. Litzenberger stated that Respondent alleged that the unit had to be moved based on damage caused by Complainant. However, Mr. Litzenberger stated that the damage was caused by other trades.
20. Mr. Litzenberger alleged that Complainant was never allowed to address its poor work. Mr. Litzenberger added that Complainant made several trips to the job-site, but Complainant did not charge Respondent for those trips. Mr. Litzenberger alleged in closing that the drawings for the project were never provided to him. Mr. Litzenberger stated that Complainant was never allowed to address the stapling issues. However, Mr. Litzenberger alleged that Complainant “got Respondent through the inspection process.”
21. Mr. Litzenberger stated that Complainant had to pull the wire out of the conduit.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. This matter lies within the Registrar’s jurisdiction.
2. 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. Ariz. Admin. Code § R2-19-119.
3. A preponderance of the evidence is:
The 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.
Black’s Law Dictionary 1373 (10th ed. 2014).
4. The Administrative Law Judge may consider the Registrar’s administrative
record. See A.A.C. R4-9-118.
Statutes should be interpreted to provide a fair and sensible result.
Gutierrez v. Industrial Commission of Arizona, 226 Ariz. 395, 249 P.3d 1095 (2011)(citation omitted); State v. McFall, 103 Ariz. 234, 238, 439 P.2d 805, 809 (1968) ("Courts will not place an absurd and unreasonable construction on statutes.")
5. “Statutes shall be liberally construed to affect their objects and to
promote justice.” Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 1-211(B).
6. The purpose of the Registrar’s licensing statutes is to protect the public from unscrupulous, unqualified, and financially irresponsible contractors. See Aesthetic Property Maintenance v. Capital Indem. Corp., 183 Ariz. 74, 900 P. 2d 1210 (1995).
7. Ariz. Rev. Stat section 32-1154(A) provides that:
The holder of a license or any person listed on a license pursuant to this chapter shall not commit any of the following acts or omissions: .... 10. Failure by a licensee or agent or official of a licensee to pay monies in excess of seven hundred fifty dollars when due for materials or services rendered in connection with the licensee's operations as a contractor when the licensee has the capacity to pay or, if the licensee lacks the capacity to pay, when the licensee has received sufficient monies as payment for the particular construction work project or operation for which the services or materials were rendered or purchased.
8. Upon consideration of the evidence presented at hearing, the Administrative Law Judge concludes that payment in the amount of $10,639.45 did not become due because Complainant failed to submit written change orders before work was completed as required in the contract. Furthermore, Complainant failed to meets its burden to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that it adequately completed the work described in the invoices totaling $10,639.45.
9. Accordingly, Complainant has failed to meet its burden to show that Respondent violated Ariz. Rev. Stat section 32-1154(A)(10) as alleged.
ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that the Citation and Complaint in Case No. 2025A-02726 is dismissed.
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 3, 2025.
/s/ Velva Moses-Thompson
Administrative Law Judge
Transmitted by either mail, e-mail, or facsimile to:
Tom Cole, Director
Registrar of Contractors
Design Build Custom Homes LLC
[email redacted]
1st Run Electric LLC
[email redacted]
By: OAH Staff