ALJDEC - Licensing

2025A-03290-NPC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2025-10-07

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

Triple B Garage Doors and Gates LLC,

COMPLAINANT,

v.

Rezcom Builders LLC

License No. ROC 318078,

RESPONDENT.

No. 2025A-03290-NPC-ROC

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION

HEARING: September 18, 2025 at 9:00 AM.

APPEARANCES: Gordon S. Bueler, Esq. appeared on behalf of Triple B Garage and Gates LLC (“Complainant”) with Roderic Burton as a witness. Christian T. Lestinsky, Esq. appeared on behalf of Rezcom Builders LLC (“Respondent”) with Paul Soldo and Daniel Ramirez as witnesses.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Jenna Clark.

EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: The Notice of Hearing on Contested Case (“Notice of Hearing”), Complainant Exhibits 1-17, Respondent Exhibits 1-7, and July 28, 2025, Minute Entry – Granting Continuance were admitted into the evidentiary record.

_____________________________________________________________________

After review of the hearing record in this matter, the undersigned Administrative Law Judge makes the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, and issues this Recommended Order to the Director of the Registrar.

FINDINGS OF FACT

Background and Procedure

Pursuant to Arizona Administrative Code (“Ariz. Admin. Code”) R4-9-117, Administrative Notice is taken of Respondent’s license files as shown on the Registrar’s public website. On February 21, 2018, the Registrar issued ROC License No. 318078 for General Dual KB-1 contracting to Respondent. Respondent’s license is active, in good standing, and renewed through February 28, 2026. Brian Scott Craig is listed as the Qualifying Party and Member on the license. Paul J. Soldo is also listed as a Member on the license. The address of record for the license is 4079 E. Lexington Ave. Gilbert, Arizona 85234. Respondent has a $14,000.00 surety bond for the license issued through Western Surety Company, effective January 21, 2025. The license does not have a prior disciplinary record. Currently, the record reflects that there is one (1) open complaint against the license, which is presumed to be related to this matter.

In or about April 24, 2025, the Registrar received three (3) complaints from Complainant alleging nonpayment of services and/or materials against Respondent. Specifically, Complainant alleged that Respondent had failed to remit timely payment(s) on three (3) invoices totaling $11,911.70 for work on three (3) different residential subcontracted projects commissioned by Respondent. Each complaint was given a different designation by the Registrar; 2025-03290, 2025-03781, and 2025-03782 respectively, and assigned the cases to Gail Mathews in their legal department for investigation.

On April 30, 2025, the Registrar issued a Notice of No Pay Complaint letter to Respondent providing notice of Complainant’s complaint, and informed Respondent that it was free to raise any affirmative defense(s) or provide additional information by May 07, 2025.

On April 30, 2025, Respondent replied to the complaint. Overall, Respondent denied the alleged outstanding debt, and argued that it should be directed to the project owner (“Owner”) because Complainant and Owner had existing contracts with one another for the services/materials at issue. Respondent further argued that Complainant was attempting to weaponize the Registrar against it in order to collect another’s debt. Respondent noted, in pertinent part, as follows:

[Complainant] knows that [Respondent] was not involved in these transactions except to make the initial introduction to [Owner]. [Owner] did all the dealings and deposits with [Complainant]. [Respondent] was not present during their meetings nor was [Respondent] ever present during any of the choosing or installation of said [materials.]

[Complainant] is using the ROC as a free service to try and collect unpaid invoices against a licensed contractor instead of hiring legal council to file a law suit against the appropriate party.

(All errors in original.)

On May 28, 2025, the Registrar issued a Citation to Respondent for an alleged violation(s) of Ariz. Rev. Stat § 32-1154(A)(10). Respondent was notified that a failure to provide an Answer by June 12, 2025, would be deemed as an admission of Respondent’s commission of the act(s) charged in the underlying complaint, pursuant to Ariz. Rev. Stat § 32-1155(B), and could result in discipline against Respondent’s license including suspension or revocation.

On June 12, 2025, the Registrar received Respondent’s timely Answer whereby Counsel for Respondent argued that Respondent was not obligated to pay Complainant for the invoices at issue, and that all obligations to pay fells to Complainant’s client, Owner (aka Vinnie’s Properties, LLC). Per Counsel, Owner “verbally approved the proposal,” which was then converted into the invoices at issue.

On June 16, 2025, this matter was referred to the Office of Administrative Hearings (“OAH”), an independent state agency, for an evidentiary hearing on July 31, 2025. Per the June 24, 2025, Notice of Hearing the issue(s) to be determined are whether the Registrar has cause to discipline Respondent’s license based on the following charge(s) alleged in the Citation:

Charge 1: A violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(10).

Hearing Evidence

Complainant called Roderic Burton as a witness. Respondent called Paul Soldo and Daniel Ramirez as witnesses. The substantive facts of record are as follows:

Respondent is a General Contractor that operates out of the greater Phoenix, Arizona area. Complainant is a subcontractor and holder of ROC License No. 284792 for Specialty Dual CR-60 Finish Carpentry contracting.

Owner applied for a permit as a contractor for a residential project located at 2301 E. Weldon Ave. Phoenix, Arizona 85016 (“Weldon”) from the local building authority. The permit was issued on November 02, 2022, with an expiration date of November 08, 2025.

Carlos Bustamonte applied for a permit for a residential project located at 2923 E. Earll Dr. Phoenix, Arizona 85016 (“Earll”) from the local building authority on behalf of Respondent. The permit was issued on March 03, 2023, with an expiration date of March 02, 2025.

Mr. Bustamonte applied for a permit for a residential project located at 1731 W. Heatherbrae Dr. Phoenix, Arizona 85016 (“Heatherbrae”) from the local building authority on behalf of Respondent. The permit was issued on April 07, 2023, with an expiration date of April 06, 2025.

In or around June 2023, Respondent contacted Complainant to inquire about its interest in bidding on three (3) residential projects it was overseeing for its “business partner,” Owner. Owner emailed Complainant details for the projects from [email redacted].

In response, On July 13, 2023, Complainant emailed a proposal the Weldon project – including all terms and conditions, to [email redacted]. The Weldon project was for the installation of two (2) garage doors with vinyl trim, including programmed keypad and remotes. The parties texted payment term clarifications. On July 17, 2023, Mr. Soldo called Complainant to approve the quote, and Complainant ordered project materials from the manufacturer.

On July 18, 2023, Owner tendered down payment to Complainant for the Weldon project.

On July 13, 2023, Complainant emailed a proposal for the Earll project – including all terms and conditions, to [email redacted]. The Earll project was for the installation of a single garage door with vinyl trim, including programmed keypad and remote. On July 17, 2023, Mr. Soldo modified the quote, which was accepted by Complainant. That same date, Complainant ordered project materials from the manufacturer.

On July 18, 2023, Owner tendered down payment to Complainant for the Earll project.

On July 18, 2023, Complainant emailed a proposal for the Heatherbrae project – including all terms and conditions, to [email redacted] and [email redacted]. The Heatherbrae project was for the installation of a single garage door with vinyl trim, including programmed keypad and remote. On August 01, 2023, Mr. Soldo called Complainant to approve the quote, and Complainant ordered project materials from the manufacturer.

Neither Respondent nor Owner tendered a down payment to Complainant for the Heatherbrae project.

Each proposal contains the following language:

ALL ORDERS REQUIRE NONREFUNDABLE DEPOSIT OF 50% (TOTAL INVOICE) PRIOR TO PLACING ORDER. ORDERS ARE NON-REFUNDABLE AFTER THE 3 DAY FEDERAL COOLING-OFF PERIOD. REMAINDER DUE UPON COMPLETION OF SCHEDULED INSTALLATION: INSTALLATION IS CONSIDERED COMPLETE WHEN DOOR OR MOTOR ARE INSTALLED PROPERLY, REGARDLESS OF BUILDING RESTRICTIONS: PAYMENT MAY NOT BE WITHHELD FOR ITEMS REQUESTED LEFT UNFINISHED BY HOMEOWNER OR CONTRACTOR (TRIM, SENSORS, FINAL PLUGIN, REMOTES, KEYPAD INSTALLATION, ETC.). PAYMENT MAY NOT BE WITHHELD FOR INTERRUPTION BY OTHER CONTRACTORS (NO PERMANENT POWER, PAINTING INCOMPLETE, DRYWALL, WIRING, ETC.). PAYMENTS MADE BY CREDIT OR DEBIT CARD ARE SUBJECT TO 2% PROCESSING FEE. [...] ACCEPTANCE OF THIS PROPOSAL BY TEXT, EMAIL OR PHONE VERIFIES THAT YOU HAVE READ AND AGREED TO ALL TERMS.

(Emphasis in original.)

Complainant completed all contracted scopes of work without being advised or otherwise warned of any alleged deficiencies, deviations, and/or incompleteness by Respondent or Owner.

On August 17, 2023, Complainant issued Invoice No. 16784, for $2,033.20, to Respondent at [email redacted] for the Earll project.

On September 12, 2023, Complainant issued Invoice No. 16782-1, for $7,987.90, to Respondent at [email redacted] for the Weldon project.

On September 12, 2023, Complainant issued Invoice No. 16881, for $1,890.60, to Respondent at [email redacted] for the Heatherbrae project.

On September 13, 2025, Complainant sent a text inquiry to Mr. Soldo regarding payment due on Invoice Nos. 16784, 16782-1, and 16881. Mr. Soldo replied that he was “working on” Owner to get payments to Complainant. On February 25, 2025, Mr. Soldo asked Complainant to provide the total amount owed on the underlying invoices, which Complainant provided that same date.

Additional Evidence

Mr. Soldo testified that he introduced Complainant to Owner before he learned of Owner’s reputation for not paying her subcontractors, and after he learned that Owner used ROC License No. 318078 to pull building permits for the Heatherbrae and Earll projects. Per Mr. Soldo, Mr. Bustamonte is Owner’s plan draftsman.

Mr. Soldo admitted that he “coordinated” Owner’s subcontractors for the Walden, Earll, and Heatherbrae projects, but denied providing supervision over the work performed.

Mr. Soldo testified that he attempted to secure payment(s) on Invoice Nos. 16784, 16782-1, and 16881 for Complainant because he felt a sense of obligation because he introduced Complainant to Owner.

Vinnie’s Properties, LLC is not licensed by the Registrar.

Closing Arguments

In closing, Respondent argued that because Owner made deposit payments to Complainant, it established that Owner was the General Contractor on the underlying projects.

In closing, Complainant argued that Respondent asked it to perform the underlying work at issue, even modifying some of it – which Complainant did without issue, and also noted that all estimates and invoices for said projects had been issued to Respondent.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

This matter lies within the Registrar’s jurisdiction and has been properly brought before OAH for adjudication.

The purpose of the Registrar’s licensing statutes is to protect the public from unscrupulous, unqualified, and financially irresponsible contractors.

The Registrar may resolve contractual disputes if such resolution in ancillary to its regulatory mission and may penalize a contractor’s license by ordering payment of restitution if a proven statutory violation was not remedied by corrective action.

Complainant bears the burden of proof to establish cause for the Registrar to discipline Respondent’s license by a preponderance of the evidence. Respondent bears the burden to establish factors in mitigation of the penalty and affirmative defenses by the same evidentiary standard.

“A preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.” A preponderance of the evidence is “[t]he 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.”

Statutes should be interpreted to provide a fair and sensible result. Statutes shall be liberally construed to affect their objects and to promote justice.

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1129.02(A) provides, in pertinent part, that “[p]erformance by a subcontractor in accordance with the provisions of a construction contract entitles the subcontractor to payment from the party with whom the subcontractor contracts.”

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1129.02(B) provides, in pertinent part, that “[i]f a subcontractor has performed in accordance with the provisions of a construction contract, the contractor shall pay to its subcontractors within seven days of receipt by the contractor of each progress payment, retention release or final payment, the full amount received for such subcontractor’s work and materials supplied based on work completed or materials supplied under the subcontract.”

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(10) holds, in pertinent part, that 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, 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.”

In the case at bar, the Tribunal is tasked with determining how much money Complainant is owed by Respondent, if any, and if so, whether said debt(s) constitute a violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(10) for which Respondent’s license should be lawfully disciplined by the Registrar.

Upon review of the record, the relevant evidence establishes that Complainant has sustained its burden of proof by the requisite evidentiary standard.

The crux of this matter hinges on Respondent’s involvement, and whether said involvement amounted to [in]actions taken by a General Contractor. Here, the record clearly establishes that Respondent hired Complainant as a garage installation subcontractor for Owner’s Walden, Earll, and Heatherbrae projects, and that all scopes of work were approved by Respondent; some of which were modified by Respondent, and Complainant was cleared by Respondent to complete work per the terms and conditions of each proposal. The record also clearly establishes that Owner paid the deposits for the Walden and Earll projects. It is also undisputed that Complainant performed all scopes of work sans issue, and did not obtain a deposit for its work on the Heatherbrae project. The record also establishes that although Respondent made several attempts to obtain $11,911.70 from Owner to pay the outstanding invoices at issue, it was unsuccessful. The multitude of correspondence issued between the parties clearly establishes Respondent’s coordination and oversight of Complainant’s work, as well as the agency in which it acted on behalf of Owner.

Therefore, the only issue remaining is whether Respondent raised a sufficient justification or excuse for failing to remit the balance due on the underlying subcontract agreement to Complainant for the Walden, Earll, and Heatherbrae projects. Based on a review of the credible and relevant evidence of record, the Tribunal finds that Respondent did not establish an affirmative defense(s) for failing to do so. Respondent’s general denials of involvement and assertions regarding Owner’s sole financial liability are outweighed by more credible evidence to the contrary.

Interestingly, while neither party called Mr. Bustamonte or Owner as a witness, on their own volition or pursuant to a duly issued subpoena, nor offered corroborating evidence via affidavit, such sworn testimony may have resulted in a different outcome as the extent of their culpabilities remain unclear. However, because the Tribunal is not at liberty to make presumptions in favor of Respondent or accept facts in mitigation on behalf of Respondent that are not supported by the evidence, it cannot reasonably be held that Respondent sustained an affirmative defense by the requisite standard in this matter.

Because Complainant has established that Respondent violated Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(10) by a preponderance of the evidence, Complainant has also established cause or grounds for the Registrar to discipline ROC License No. 318078.

RECOMMENDED ORDER

In light of the foregoing,

IT IS RECOMMENDED that on the effective date of the Final Order in this matter, Respondent Rezcom Builders LLC, License No. ROC 318078, shall be suspended and remain in an inactive status until Respondent provides the Registrar with sufficient proof that, $2,033.20 for Invoice No. 16784, $7,987.90 for Invoice No. 16782-1, and $1,890.60 for Invoice No. 16881; $11,911.70 in total, has been tendered to Complainant in certified funds as restitution.

IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that after the Registrar has received Respondent’s proof of payment to Complainant, Complaint Nos. 2025-03290, 2025-03781, and 2025-03782 shall be closed with prejudice.

NOTICE

Pursuant to Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 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, October 07, 2025.

Office of Administrative Hearings

/s/ Jenna Clark

Administrative Law Judge

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

Tom Cole, Director

c/o Legal Department

Registrar of Contractors

1700 W. Washington St., Ste. 105

Phoenix, AZ 85007

[email redacted]

Gordon S. Bueler, Esq.

Bueler Jones LLP, Counsel for Complainant

1300 N. McClintock Dr., Ste. B-4

Chandler, AZ 85226

[email redacted]

Christian T. Lestinsky, Esq.

James N. Hanson, Esq.

Lang Thal King & Hanson PC, Counsel for Respondent

6730 N. Scottsdale Rd., Ste. 101

Scottsdale, AZ 85253

[email redacted]

[email redacted]

[email redacted]

By: OAH Staff