ALJDEC - Licensing

2025A-03103-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2025-09-25

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

Melissa Braun,

COMPLAINANT,

v.

Sunrise Construction, LLC

License No. ROC 328797,

RESPONDENT.

No. 2025A-03103-CHC-ROC

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION

HEARING: September 9, 2025

APPEARANCES: Complainant Melissa Braun appeared on her own behalf. Respondent Sunrise Construction, LLC did not appear. Arizona Registrar of Contractors Investigator David Fagerburg appeared as a witness.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Sondra J. Vanella

EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: None; Administrative Notice taken of Agency Record

FINDINGS OF FACT

Sunrise Construction, LLC (“Respondent”) is the holder of License Number 328797 issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (“Registrar”).

On or about December 30, 2024, Melissa Braun (“Complainant”) contracted with Respondent for Respondent to perform reconstruction of a shower. The total contract price for Respondent’s scope of work was $18,225.00. Complainant has paid Respondent a total of $17,675.00

On or about March 27, 2025, the Registrar received a Complaint against Respondent from Complainant alleging abandonment and poor work with respect to Respondent’s scope of work.

The Registrar assigned the Complaint to Investigator David Fagerburg. After a May 2, 2025 Jobsite Inspection at which Respondent was present, Investigator Fagerburg issued a Written Directive to Respondent dated June 2, 2025, that provided as follows:

After investigation, the Registrar determined that you failed to meet the requirements of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A), and now issues this Directive requiring you to take appropriate corrective action. Failure to comply with this Directive constitutes a violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22) and may result in the issuance of a citation, discipline of your license, and a civil penalty pursuant to A.R.S. § 32-1154(E) of up to $500.00. You must notify the Registrar’s assigned Investigator of your compliance with this Directive prior to 5:00 p.m. on Monday June 23, 2025.

Investigator Notes:

1: Upon reviewing the written contract dated December 30, 2024 submitted by the complainant I am able to verify there is at least 1 of the 9 minimum elements of a contract missing violating ARS §32-1158 (A) Minimum elements of a contract.

Specifically #5. Warning letter issued.

2: Upon reviewing the written estimate dated December 26, 2024 submitted by the complainant I am able to verify a permit was not obtained for the scope of work that included moving plumbing, install new shower valves and hand held and create new shower pan to new shower design violating ARS § 32-1154 (A) (2) (B) Departure from or disregard of a building code. Warning letter issued.

Complaint Narrative: Contractor left job unfinished, we have tried emailing, texting, calling to find out when he plans on finishing, no response. Work was done in some areas in a very un workman like manner.

You are directed to remedy the following violations by the appropriate means:

Complaint Item 1: Floor tile outside of shower was set at a lower grade and surrounding tile creating a trip hazard

Investigator’s Observation: At this jobsite investigation outside the primary shower I observed and am able to verify the floor tile is at a lower level than the surrounding tile creating lippage that exceeds 1/32”. I also observed tile installed on the shower curb exterior that exceeds 1/32”. See P (3) thru P (6). Prior to any corrective work being performed the respondent shall obtain a permit from the local building authority, comply with all requirements, pass all inspections and correct the tile with lippage that exceeds 1/32” throughout the primary shower by appropriate means.

Complaint Item 2: Floor tile in shower was not set straight, grout lines are not straight in many areas

Investigator’s Observation: At this jobsite investigation in the primary shower I observed and am able to verify the floor tile and grout lines on the shower pan are not straight. See P (7) thru P (9). Prior to any corrective work being performed the respondent shall obtain a permit from the local building authority, comply with all requirements, pass all inspections and correct the shower pan tile and grout lines that are not straight throughout by appropriate means.

Complaint Item 3: Grout lines around the edge of the shower walls are 3/4 to 1 inch wide. Tile pieces should’ve been put in these areas

Investigator’s Observation: At this jobsite investigation in the primary shower I observed and am able to verify the grout lines around the edge of the shower walls are excessively large and are not uniform. See P (10), P (11) and P (13). Prior to any corrective work being performed the respondent shall obtain a permit from the local building authority, comply with all requirements, pass all inspections and correct the grout lines around the edge of the shower that are excessively wide and not uniform by appropriate means.

Complaint Item 4: Several areas on shower floor were tile is lower than surrounding tile, causing water to pool

Investigator’s Observation: At this jobsite investigation the complainant stated that the primary shower was used at 7:30 am the day of this jobsite investigation. During this jobsite investigation in the primary shower and drying deck I observed and am able to verify there is water that did not drain and is ponding at the drying deck and the shower floor in the corner. See P (7), P (12) thru P (17) and P (37). Prior to any corrective work being performed the respondent shall obtain a permit from the local building authority, comply with all requirements, pass all inspections and correct the areas on the shower floor and drying deck with water that does not drain and is ponding by appropriate means.

Complaint Item 5: Grout missing in several areas around the shower

Investigator’s Observation: At this jobsite investigation outside the primary shower I observed and am able to verify there is grout missing along the exterior of the shower curb. See P (18) thru P (20). I also observed a hole in the shower pan grout and grout missing at the partition end wall next to the shower. See P (3), P (11) and P (25). Prior to any corrective work being performed the respondent shall obtain a permit from the local building authority, comply with all requirements, pass all inspections and correct the missing grout at the at the outside shower curb and the hole in the shower pan grout by appropriate means.

Complaint Item 8: Paint in some areas was done poorly

Investigator’s Observation: At this jobsite investigation I observed what appears to be mismatched paint and brush marks at some locations in the primary bathroom that is poorly applied. The paint on the walls appears to have been applied with a roller. See P (26) and P (27). The respondent shall correct the paint in some areas of the primary bathroom that are applied poorly by appropriate means.

Complaint Item 9: Hole in wall on outside of shower, in bathroom, caused from removal of tile was not repaired

Investigator’s Observation: At this jobsite investigation the complainant showed me what appears to be a nail pop on the opposite side of the shower. See P (28). The complainant acknowledged that all the other minor damage was repaired by the respondent. It is more likely than not that the nail pop occurred when the respondent was removing the previously installed tile. The respondent shall correct the nail pop on the outside of the shower by appropriate means.

Complaint Item 10: Trim was not properly caulked in many areas around the shower

Investigator’s Observation: At this jobsite investigation the complainant showed me where the drywall meets the Schluter trim at the partition end wall next to the shower is poorly caulked. See P (26), P (27), P (31) and P (32). The respondent shall correct the poorly caulked Schluter trim at the partition end wall by appropriate means.

Complaint Item 11: Drywall repair above medicine cabinet is very crooked

Investigator’s Observation: At this jobsite investigation I observed drywall above the medicine cabinet that is noticeably crooked. The respondent acknowledged there may be a heavy application of drywall mud. See P (25), P (29) and P (30). The respondent shall correct the drywall above the medicine cabinet that is very crooked by appropriate means.

ITEMS NOT REQUIRING CORRECTION

The following complaint items require no action by the Respondent:

Complaint Item 6: Tile in front of shower that was polished and sealed by homeowner was damaged by contractor and needs to be redone

Investigator’s Observation: At this jobsite investigation at the front of the primary shower the complainant showed me Travertine tile that had been polished by the complainant prior to the respondent completing the project. The complainant stated that the respondent damaged the Travertine with rubber cement or other foreign material and the complainant made an attempt to remove the material. I am unable to verify any foreign material that may have damaged the Travertine surface in front of the shower. See P (21).

Complaint Item 7: Glass shelves in niche were never installed

Investigator’s Observation: At this jobsite investigation in the primary shower I observed glass shelves installed in a niche on metal brackets with spacers. The glass thickness appears to be thinner than the brackets. See P (22) and P (23). The complainant acknowledged that a 3rd party glass contractor installed the glass shelves even though the glass thickness does not fit the brackets. Upon reviewing the written estimate dated December 26, 2024 submitted by the complainant I am able to verify there is no specification to install glass shelving in the primary shower niche and the respondent did not install the glass shelves.

Complaint Item 12: Shelving in pantry done as a side job was no complete. Stain is uneven, nail holes were not filled, varnish not applied

Investigator’s Observation: At this jobsite investigation in the pantry the

complainant showed me wood stained shelving installed. See P (33) thru P (36). The complainant acknowledged the shelving was stained by the respondent prior to installation and the wood had various colors and tone. The complainant acknowledged re-staining all the shelving components after the installation and started filling the nail holes and then decided to stop. The respondent stated that the complainant was fine with leaving the pantry wood shelves as is and the complainant would complete the pantry shelving project. Upon reviewing the written contract and estimate submitted by the complainant I am able to verify there is no specification to stain, varnish and install wooden pantry shelving.

All errors in original.

After the expiration of the Written Directive, Investigator Fagerburg ascertained that Respondent had not performed any corrective work. On June 26, 2025, Investigator Fagerburg had a phone conversation with Respondent’s representative who stated that Respondent had only recently received the Written Directive through the mail, as it had been sent to an outdated email address. However, the Written Directive was sent to Respondent at Respondent’s email address of record with the Registrar and Respondent received notice of the Jobsite Inspection and attended it. It was Respondent’s responsibility to inform the Registrar of any changes in contact information. Respondent asked Investigator Fagerburg if Respondent could complete the corrective work. Investigator Fagerburg informed Respondent that the deadline for compliance with the Written Directive had expired.

Thereafter, Investigator Fagerburg forwarded the matter to the Registrar’s Legal Department. The Registrar issued a Citation against Respondent charging possible violations of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(2)(b), A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(a), A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(12), namely A.R.S. § 32-1158, and A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22).

The Registrar referred the matter to the Office of Administrative Hearings, an independent State agency, for an evidentiary hearing.

The hearing of this matter was scheduled to convene on September 9, 2025, at 1:00 p.m. On the date and at the time set for hearing, Complainant appeared on her own behalf. Investigator Fagerburg was also present. Respondent did not appear.

On July 29, 2025, the Registrar issued the Notice of Hearing advising the parties of the hearing date and time, and that the Office of Administrative Hearings would issue Google Meet information for participation in the hearing. The Notice of Hearing was sent to Respondent’s mailing and email addresses of record with the Registrar.

On July 30, 2025, the Tribunal issued to the parties an Order setting the hearing via Google Meet. That Order contained the Google Meet link to join the hearing by video or phone. Respondent did not appear through an authorized member, employee, or attorney. Respondent did not request that the hearing be continued. Because Respondent failed to appear, Respondent did not present any evidence to defend its license.

Investigator Fagerburg testified regarding his findings contained in the Written Directive. Investigator Fagerburg referenced the photographs taken during the Jobsite Inspection to illustrate the deficiencies in Respondent’s workmanship.

Investigator Fagerburg testified that after the issuance of the Written Directive, he ascertained through the City of Scottsdale that a permit was not required for Respondent’s scope of work on this project. Had Investigator Fagerburg been aware of such prior to the issuance of the Written Directive and Citation, Respondent would not have been charged with a violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(2)(b). Similarly, Investigator Fagerburg testified that upon further review, Respondent’s contract complied with all of the Registrar’s requirements for contracts, and therefore, he would not have recommended that Respondent be charged with a violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(12), namely A.R.S. § 32-1158.

At hearing, Complainant wanted to address damage to the bathtub and damage to the house, however, these issues were not identified in Complainant’s Complaint, and therefore, were not within the scope of the hearing. Regarding the shelving in the pantry, Investigator Fagerburg testified that Complainant re-stained the wood and patched holes, and consequently, modified Respondent’s work. Therefore, he could not verify this item of Complaint. Complainant testified that she agreed with Investigator Fagerburg’s testimony. Complainant expressed that she did “not know why the job went south,” other than Respondent having issues with its employees. Complainant testified that there was no impediment to work and Respondent was provided with every opportunity to complete the project.

Administrative notice is taken of Respondent’s prior License record on September 24, 2025. Such prior License record reflects that Respondent’s License Number 328797 was first issued on May 8, 2020, and is active. Such prior License record also reflects that there is only the instant open Complaint, no resolved/settled complaints, and one complaint resulting in discipline against Respondent’s license.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

This matter lies within the Registrar’s jurisdiction.

Complainant bears the burden of proof to establish Respondent’s statutory violations 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.”

The evidence of record failed to establish that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(2)(b), as Investigator Fagerburg testified that a permit was not required by the City of Scottsdale for the project.

The evidence of record established that Respondent’s work was not in conformity with the Registrar’s standards. Therefore, Complainant established that Respondent did not complete the project in a professional and workmanlike manner in violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(a).

The evidence of record failed to establish that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(12), as Investigator Fagerburg testified that Respondent’s contract documents were in compliance with the Registrar’s statutory requirements for contracts.

The evidence of record established that Respondent did not complete the corrective work following the issuance of the Written Directive. Respondent did not establish, as an affirmative defense, that valid justification for such failure existed. Therefore, Complainant established that Respondent failed to take appropriate corrective action following a Written Directive from the Registrar in violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22).

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Based on the foregoing, it is recommended that on the effective date of the Order, the Registrar shall suspend Respondent’s License Number 328797 for a period of five (5) days.

It is further recommended that the Registrar require Respondent to pay the sum of $500.00 as a civil penalty pursuant to A.R.S. § 32-1154(E).

It is further recommended that if Respondent fails to pay the entire amount of the civil penalty on or before thirty (30) days following the effective date of the Registrar’s final order, the Registrar revoke Respondent’s license, effective on such deadline date. No future license shall be issued to any entity consisting of persons associated with Respondent, as defined in A.R.S. § 32-1101(A)(7), unless Respondent tenders payment of any outstanding prior civil penalty.

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, September 25, 2025.

/s/ Sondra J. Vanella

Administrative Law Judge

Transmitted by either mail, e-mail, or facsimile to:

Tom Cole, Director

Registrar of Contractors

David Fagerburg

[email redacted]

Sunrise Construction, LLC

[email redacted]

Melissa Braun

[email redacted]

By: OAH Staff