ALJDEC - Licensing
2025A-02729-NPC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2025-07-21
IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
Rising Doors LLC
COMPLAINANT,
v.
Dream House Construction & Renovations LLC,
License No. ROC 342522,
RESPONDENT.
No. 2025A-02729-NPC-ROC
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION
HEARING: June 30, 2025
APPEARANCES: Natan Shuster, Owner and Qualifying Party, appeared on behalf of Complainant Rising Doors LLC. Christopher Quick, Owner and Qualifying Party, appeared on behalf of Respondent Dream House Construction & Renovations LLC.
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Tammy L. Eigenheer
EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: Administrative Notice was taken of the Hearing Packet submitted by the Registrar of Contractors. Complainant’s Exhibits 1 through 5 were admitted.
_____________________________________________________________________
FINDINGS OF FACT
Dream House Construction & Renovations LLC (Respondent) is the holder of License No. 342522 issued by the Registrar of Contractors (Registrar).
On or about September 18, 2024, Rising Doors LLC (Complainant) entered into a contract with Respondent to install a total of four garage doors, two doors on two properties near each other for a total contract price of $25,084.00, $23,084.00 for the cost of the doors and $2,000.00 for the labor to install the doors. Complainant agreed that, instead of requiring a 50 percent deposit, it would accept a 25 percent deposit with the remainder due upon completion.
Respondent paid Complainant $6,271.00 as a deposit for both properties.
Complainant ordered all four garage doors at the same time. Complainant installed two of the garage doors on one of the properties and delivered two of the garage doors to the second property so they were ready for installation. Respondent informed Complainant that it was not ready to install the doors on the second property due to construction delays.
Respondent did not pay Complainant for the materials or the installation of the doors on the first property.
Complainant had been ready, willing, and able to install the second set of garage doors since October 2024.
On or about March 17, 2025, Complainant filed a Complaint against Respondent with the Registrar alleging that Respondent had failed to pay Complainant the sum of $18,813.00 for work performed.
The parties were unable to resolve their differences, and Complainant requested an administrative hearing. The Registrar then issued a Citation for Alleged Violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(10).
Mr. Shuster testified that the total due to Complainant was $17,813.00, the contact price of $25,084.00, less $6,271.00 for the deposit, and less $1,000.00 for the labor of installing the doors on the second property, which had not been completed. Mr. Shuster stated he contracted with Mr. Quick in his capacity as a representative for Respondent. Mr. Shuster stated he was only willing to accept the 25 percent deposit because he understood the projects would be completed at approximately the same time.
Mr. Quick testified that he did not enter into the contract with Complainant on behalf of Respondent, but on own behalf. Mr. Quick stated he was an owner builder with respect to the properties. Mr. Quick denied asking Complainant to order all four doors at the same time and invited Complainant to come pick up the two doors that had not yet been installed.
Respondent did not assert that it lacked the capacity to pay the amount Complainant asserted was due.
Respondent also did not provide any evidence that Mr. Quick met the requirements of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1121(A)(5) or (6) with respect to the project, such that Respondent was not subject to discipline.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
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.
A preponderance of the evidence is “such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.”
A.R.S. § 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.
Respondent failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the contract with Complainant was made individually by Mr. Quick rather than on behalf of the company.
While the agreement was initially for the rest of the contract price to be paid upon completion, the lack of completion was not due to any fault of Complainant. Complainant provided the materials in a timely manner and stood ready to complete the project at any time. Respondent’s construction delays were not the fault of Complainant. Of the total contract price of $25,084.00, Complainant’s unearned portion is only $1,000.00.
The evidence established that Respondent owed a total of $17,813.00 for work performed and materials supplied.
Respondent failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that it lacked the ability to pay Complainant for the work performed.
Therefore, Complainant established that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(10) by failing to pay Complainant $17,813.00 for services or materials rendered in connection with Respondent’s contracting business.
Based upon Respondent’s violation of the provisions of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(10), grounds exist to impose discipline against Respondent’s license
RECOMMENDed order
Based on the foregoing, it is recommended that the Registrar suspend Respondent’s License No. 342522 issued by the Registrar until it has provided to the Registrar, and the Registrar has accepted, documents that establish that it has paid Complainant $17,813.00 in certified funds.
It is further recommended that when and if the Registrar receives and accepts Respondent’s evidence that it has paid Complainant $17,813.00 in certified funds, the Registrar may close the Complaint in Case No. 2025-02729.
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 21, 2025.
/s/ Tammy L. Eigenheer
Administrative Law Judge
Transmitted by either mail, e-mail, or facsimile to:
Tom Cole, Director
Registrar of Contractors
Dream House Construction & Renovations LLC
[email redacted]
Rising Doors LLC
[email redacted]
By: OAH Staff