ALJDEC - Licensing
2025A-03097-OMC-LS-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2025-11-28
IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
Arizona Registrar of Contractors,
COMPLAINANT
v.
Aspect LLC
DBA: AMCOR General Contracting,
License No. ROC 329908,
RESPONDENT
No. 2025A-03097-OMC-LS-ROC
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION
HEARING: November 7, 2025
APPEARANCES:
Complainant: Mona Baskin, Assistant Attorney General
Michael LaClare, Assistant General Counsel
Respondent: No Appearance
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Nedra-Su Kawasaki
EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: Administrative notice was taken of the Notice of Hearing Packet submitted by the Registrar of Contractors.
Complainant Exhibits 1-14. Appendices A, B, C.
_____________________________________________________________________
FINDINGS OF FACT
Aspect, LLC (Respondent) was the holder of License No. 329908, issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (Complainant) on July 27, 2020.
Christopher Todd Newington (CTN) was named as the Qualifying Party and member with 100% ownership of License No. 329908.
Signature Exteriors, LLC (Signature) was the holder of License No. 326200, issued by Complainant on September 17, 2019.
CTN was named as the Qualifying Party and member with 100% ownership of License No. 326200.
CTN was associated with Signature License No. 326200, as the Qualifying Party beginning September 11, 2019. CTN remained associated with Signature’s license as a Qualifying Party as of the date of the hearing.
A Final Administrative Decision and Order issued June 19, 2024, accepted the Administrative Law Judge Decision and suspended the license of Signature, effective July 29, 2024, pending payment of $15,796.05 to Complainant in Case No. 2023-13375.
Signature’s license remained under provisional supervision as of the date of hearing.
On May 7, 2025, Complainant, on its own motion, issued a Citation and Complaint alleging a violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(20).
On May 22, 2025, Respondent, by and through Counsel, submitted an Answer to the Citation acknowledging the factual allegations, but denying any violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(20).
The matter was referred to the Office of Administrative Hearings, an independent state agency, for an evidentiary hearing.
A Notice of Hearing was issued setting a hearing for 9:00 a.m. on July 29, 2025. The Notice of Hearing was mailed to Respondent at its address and email address of record. An Order from the Office of Administrative Hearings advised the parties of how to connect to the hearing via Google Meet. The hearing was held as scheduled via Google Meet.
Respondent did not request that the hearing be continued. Although the start of the hearing was delayed 15 minutes, Respondent did not appear through an authorized member, employee, or attorney. Consequently, Respondent did not present any evidence to defend its license.
Complainant testified and presented evidence consistent with the facts set forth above. Complainant argued that it was the purpose of the Registrar of Contractors to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the public. Complainant had serious concerns for the welfare of the public as it had already been harmed due to hardship caused by Respondent as evidenced by the continued suspension of Signature’s license, on which Respondent was the Qualifying Party. Further, Complainant argued, the statute, and the Registrar thereby, encouraged Respondent to clear up the suspension to maintain both licenses.
In closing, Ms. Baskin noted the commonality of parties on both Respondent’s and Signature’s licenses and argued that there was undisputed conclusive evidence of an A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(20) violation. Further, the purpose of the statute was to protect the public by providing notice of a current licensee’s disciplinary history to prevent a licensee subject to disciplinary action from conducting business on a separate license. The ALJ Decision on the Signature license provided CTN with notice that he had unresolved issues with the Registrar, and at the time of the hearing, he had had over a year to resolve the matter. Regarding the current matter against Respondent’s license, CTN had had notice since July 2025, over three months to resolve it. CTN continued to have the ability to unrestrictedly contract under Respondent’s license and generate income. Therefore, Ms. Baskin argued that based on the totality of circumstances and the timeline CTN had to resolve the Signature license matter, Complainant requested Respondent’s license be revoked.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
This matter lies within the Registrar’s jurisdiction.
The expiration, cancellation, suspension, or revocation of a license by operation of law or by decision and order of Complainant or a court of law or the voluntary surrender of a license by a licensee does not deprive Complainant of jurisdiction to proceed with any investigation of or action or disciplinary proceeding against such a licensee, or to render a decision suspending or revoking such a license, or denying the renewal or right of renewal of such a license.
The Notice of Hearing was mailed to Respondent at its address and email address of record. Additionally, Complainant’s exhibits included a copy of the Notice of Hearing and the Google Meet Order providing the hearing connection instructions. Complainant copied Respondent’s Counsel when it filed its exhibits with the Office of Administrative Hearings. Therefore, Respondent is deemed to have received reasonable notice of the hearing.
Complainant bears the burden of proof to establish Respondent’s statutory violation 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) provides, in pertinent part:
The holder of a license or any person named on a license pursuant to this chapter may not commit any of the following acts or omissions:
. . . .
(20) Having a person named on the license who is or was named on any other license in this state or in another state that is under suspension or revocation for any act or omission that occurs while the person is or was named on the license unless the prior revocation was based solely on a violation of this paragraph.
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.
In the instant matter, CTN was named as a Qualifying Party on two licenses— License No. 329908 (Aspect, LLC) and License 326200 (Signature Exteriors, LCL). CTN was named as the Qualifying Party on Respondent’s license as of July 27, 2020, and Signature’s license as of September 17, 2019. At the time that License No. 326200 (Signature) was suspended, CTN was a Qualifying Party or member of the Signature license. Therefore, Complainant established that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(20), by having CTN, who had been named on another suspended license (License No. 326200), named on its license.
Based on Respondent’s violation of the provisions of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(20), grounds exist to impose discipline against Respondent’s license.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Based on the foregoing, it is recommended that the Registrar revoke Respondent’s License No. 326200 issued by the Registrar.
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 28, 2025.
/s/ Nedra-Su Kawasaki
Administrative Law Judge
Transmitted by either mail, e-mail, or facsimile to:
Tom Cole, Director
Registrar of Contractors
Aspect LLC
DBA: AMCOR General Contracting
[email redacted]
Arizona Registrar of Contractors
[email redacted]
By: OAH Staff