ALJDEC - Licensing
2025A-02968-NPC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2025-11-17
IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
O&G Construction LLC,
COMPLAINANT,
v.
UG Construction, Inc.
License No. ROC 265627,
RESPONDENT.
No. 2025A-02968-NPC-ROC
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION
HEARING: August 8, 2025, and October 28, 2025.
APPEARANCES:
For Complainant: Omar Carrizzoza and Jorge Coss.
For Respondent: Christian Monson. No appearance for closing arguments.
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Samuel Fox
EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: Administrative notice was taken of the Notice of Hearing Packet submitted by the Registrar of Contractors. Complainant’s Exhibit 7, 9, 10. Respondent Exhibit 4, 8, 10, 14–15, 17, 20.
_____________________________________________________________________
FINDINGS OF FACT
UG Construction, Inc. (Respondent) was the holder of License No. 265627 issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (Registrar) on July 6, 2021, and suspended for lack of bond on September 23, 2025.
On or about November 9, 2023, O&G Construction LLC (Complainant) entered into a contract with Respondent to perform licensed work.
On or about March 24, 2025, Complainant filed a Non-Payment Complaint Form with the Registrar, claiming Respondent had failed to pay two invoices, amounting to $122,390.82.
On or about April 3, 2025, the Registrar notified Respondent that it had received a complaint and that it could raise issues and defenses.
On May 1, 2025, the Registrar issued a Citation, alleging that Respondent violated Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) § 32-1154 (A)(10).
On May 16, 2025, Respondent submitted an Answer, stating Complainant’s work was defective, not accepted by the owner, and needed to be redone.
The matter was referred to the Office of Administrative Hearings for an administrative hearing.
Omar Carrizzoza testified that Respondent never provided notice of poor work. He acknowledged that Complainant damaged some equipment.
Armando Rodriguez testified that the inspections were completed on Complainant’s work, and Respondent never informed Complainant that there was an issue with the work. He testified that Complainant did have to redo some epoxy work after it was not given enough time to cure. He acknowledged possible damage to equipment.
Respondent posited that $55,687.61 was owed. Respondent entered documents demonstrating that Complainant was aware that its work was not accepted. Respondent did not enter any testimony. Respondent did not make a closing argument.
The property damage cost $4,638.10 to repair.
Retainage for the Pepsi project was $7,692.00.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
This matter lies within the Registrar’s jurisdiction.
Complainant bore the burden of proof to establish Respondent’s statutory violations by a preponderance of the evidence. Respondent bore 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.”
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.
In Arizona, when construing statutes, we look first to a statute’s language as the best and most reliable index of its meaning. If the statute’s language is clear and unambiguous, we give effect to that language and apply it without using other means of statutory construction, unless applying the literal language would lead to an absurd result. Words should be given “their natural, obvious, and ordinary meaning,” unless defined by the legislature.
Complainant demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that $122,390.82 was due for materials or services rendered to Respondent in connection with Respondent’s operations as a licensed contractor. Respondent demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount should be reduced by at least $4,638.10 for property damage caused by Complainant and $7,692.00 for retainage based on performance issues, totaling $12,330.00.
Complainant requested interest on the unpaid amounts. The Tribunal does not have the authority to discipline a contractor on the basis of interest. The amount at issue is limited to that “due for materials or services rendered in connection with the licensee's operations as a contractor.”
The preponderance of the evidence showed that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(10). Therefore, the Administrative Law Judge finds grounds to impose discipline against Respondent’s license.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Based on the foregoing, it is recommended that Respondent pay Complainant $110,060.82 within thirty (30) days of the Order becoming effective, and if Respondent fails to do so, the Registrar shall suspend Respondent’s License No. 265627 until Respondent provides proof that it has paid Complainant in full.
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, November 17, 2025.
/s/ Samuel Fox
Administrative Law Judge
Transmitted by either mail, e-mail, or facsimile to:
Tom Cole, Director
Registrar of Contractors
Jorge Coss
Coss Law, PLLC
[email redacted]
UG Construction, Inc.
[email redacted]
O&G Construction LLC
[email redacted]
By: OAH Staff