ALJDEC - Licensing
2025A-03080-NPC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2025-07-11
IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
Facundo Thoma Ferrari,
COMPLAINANT
v.
Desert Swift Construction LLC,
License No. ROC 342129,
RESPONDENT
No. 2025A-03080-NPC-ROC
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION
HEARING: June 26, 2025
APPEARANCES: Complainant Facundo Thoma Ferrari appeared telephonically on his own behalf.
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Adam D. Stone
EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE:
_____________________________________________________________________
FINDINGS OF FACT
On May 13, 2025, the Registrar of Contractors (“ROC”) issued a Notice of Hearing on Contested Case setting the above-captioned matter for hearing on June 26, 2025, at the Office of Administrative Hearings.
The Notice of Hearing shows that the hearing was being conducted on the charges made in the complaint and citation that were served on Respondent Desert Swift Construction LLC on April 17, 2025. A copy of the Notice of Hearing, as well as an Order containing the Google Meet information was mailed and e-mailed to Respondent’s addresses of record.
Through the citation and Notice of Hearing, ROC alleges that Respondent may have violated Ariz. Rev. Stat. section 32-1154(A)(10).
Respondent holds License No. 342129 issued by ROC.
Complainant is Facundo Thoma Ferarri LLC.
Complainant provided materials on a project for which Respondent was the general contractor.
On March 26, 2025, Complainant filed with ROC a complaint against Respondent alleging that Respondent owed Complainant $2,500.00 on invoice 3162 dated August 29, 2024.
The hearing was convened on June 26, 2025.
The tribunal waited for fifteen minutes, but Respondent failed to appear. Because Respondent did not appear through an authorized member, employee, or attorney, Respondent did not present any evidence to defend its license.
Mr. Ferrari testified that the amount due still had yet to be paid by Respondent. Further Mr. Ferrari also argued that he should be awarded an extra $500.00, due to Respondent’s dishonest and unacceptable behavior.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Unless otherwise provided by law, 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.
“At a hearing on an agency action to suspend, revoke, terminate or modify on its own initiative material conditions of a license or permit, the agency has the burden of persuasion.” Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 41-1092.07(G)(2).
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).
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.").
“Statutes shall be liberally construed to effect their objects and to promote justice.” Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 1-211(B).
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).
Among the grounds for suspension or revocation of a contractor’s license is a “[f]ailure by [the] 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.” Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(10).
The preponderance of the evidence shows that Respondent owes Complainant more than $750.00 for materials purchased in connection with Respondent’s operations as a contractor. From the credible evidence provided, the tribunal finds that Respondent had yet to pay, and by failing to appear, it did not present any affirmative defense.
Therefore, the tribunal finds that the amount due, is $2,500.00.
Therefore, the preponderance of the evidence shows that Respondent has violated section 32-1154(A)(10).
Respondent’s license should be suspended until it pays to Complainant $2,500.00
RECOMMENDED ORDER
IT IS RECOMMENDED that Desert Swift Construction LLC’s license number 342129 be suspended until the Registrar receives proof that it has paid to Facundo Thoma Ferrari $2,500.00.
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 11, 2025.
/s/ Adam D. Stone
Administrative Law Judge
Transmitted by either mail, e-mail, or facsimile to:
Tom Cole, Director
Registrar of Contractors
Desert Swift Construction LLC
[email redacted]
Facundo Thoma Ferrari
[email redacted]
By: OAH Staff