ALJDEC - Licensing

2025A-03333-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2025-11-24

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

Kim Lazarus-Caruana,

COMPLAINANT

v.

PinPoint Plumbing LLC

License No. ROC 351340,

RESPONDENT

No. 2025A-03333-CHC-ROC

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION

HEARING: November 10, 2025

APPEARANCES: Complainant Kim Lazarus-Caruana was represented by Robert Elliot. Jesse Camuso appeared on behalf of Respondent PinPoint Plumbing LLC. Registrar of Contractors Investigator John Peru appeared via Google Meet.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Adam D. Stone

EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: Complainant’s Exhibit 1 and the Agency file were admitted into evidence.

_____________________________________________________________________

FINDINGS OF FACT

PinPoint Plumbing LLC (Respondent) is the holder of License No. 351340 issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (Registrar).

On or about March 1, 2025, Complainant hired Respondent to remodel her bathroom at her residence in Goodyear, Arizona. The total cost was to be $11,500.00, and Complainant paid $8,700.00.

On or about April 2, 2025, the Registrar received a Complaint against Respondent from Complainant alleging poor work with respect to project.

The Registrar assigned the complaint to Investigator John Peru. The jobsite inspection was performed on April 23, 2025.

Investigator Peru then issued a Written Directive on or about April 24, 2025, which provided in pertinent part 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 Friday, May 9, 2025.

Complaint Item: 1 - Cement boards not butted to each other and to existing

drywall.

Investigator’s Observation: Verified.

At the time of this inspection, the cement board substrate is not taped & mudded throughout the shower surround. Additionally, there are areas unprotected/lacking CBU/ and or excessive gapping in some areas.

Furthermore, the water proofing membrane (Kerdi) is incomplete. REF: (P) 1 through (P) 4

Governing Rule: Violation of any rule adopted by the Registrar; Namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(a): A contractor shall perform all work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) - R4-9-108(A) Workmanship

Complaint Item: 2 - Cement and drywall joints not taped and mudded.

Investigator’s Observation: Verified.

At the time of this inspection, the cement board substrate is not taped & mudded throughout the shower surround. Additionally, there are areas unprotected/lacking CBU/ and or excessive gapping in some areas.

Furthermore, the water proofing membrane (Kerdi) is incomplete. REF: (P) 1 through (P) 4

Governing Rule: Violation of any rule adopted by the Registrar; Namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(a): A contractor shall perform all work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) - R4-9-108(A) Workmanship

Complaint Item: 3 - Exposed studs left in shower area.

Investigator’s Observation: Verified.

At the time of this inspection, the cement board substrate is not taped & mudded throughout the shower surround. Additionally, there are areas unprotected/lacking CBU/ and or excessive gapping in some areas.

Furthermore, the water proofing membrane (Kerdi) is incomplete. REF: (P) 1 through (P) 4

Governing Rule: Violation of any rule adopted by the Registrar; Namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(a): A contractor shall perform all work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) - R4-9-108(A) Workmanship

Complaint Item: 4 - Wall tiles not level or evenly spaced.

Investigator’s Observation: Verified.

At the time of this inspection, the tile surround grout joints were uneven. There were tiles that were butted up to each other (not providing the required minimum 1/16" grout joint). The tile was incomplete. REF: (P) 5, (P) 6.

Governing Rule: Violation of any rule adopted by the Registrar; Namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(a): A contractor shall perform all work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) - R4-9-108(A) Workmanship

Complaint Item: 5 - Wall tiles attached with minimal cement.

Investigator’s Observation: Verified.

At the time of this inspection, I observed several tiles with inadequate thin set coverage (95% coverage required in wet zone). REF: (P) 6, (P) 7.

Governing Rule: Violation of any rule adopted by the Registrar; Namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(a): A contractor shall perform all work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) - R4-9-108(A) Workmanship

Complaint Item: 6 - Two full tiles installed in shower area before any waterproofing.

Investigator’s Observation: Verified.

At the time of this inspection, I observed 2 tiles installed without the water proofing membrane (up to tub spout location). The respondent stated that those were a temporary installation to allow the layout for the adjacent field tiles extending out to the bathroom wall. The respondent stated that the tiles would be removed, and re-installed with the water proofing membrane.

Governing Rule: Violation of any rule adopted by the Registrar; Namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(a): A contractor shall perform all work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) - R4-9-108(A) Workmanship

Complaint Item: 7 - Waterproofed using Kerdi membrane without overlapping all seams, cut around tile, exposed boards and studs.

Investigator’s Observation: Verified.

At the time of this inspection, the cement board substrate is not taped & mudded throughout the shower surround. Additionally, there are areas unprotected/lacking CBU/ and or excessive gapping in some areas.

Furthermore, the water proofing membrane (Kerdi) is incomplete. REF: (P) 1 through (P) 4

Governing Rule: Violation of any rule adopted by the Registrar; Namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(a): A contractor shall perform all work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) - R4-9-108(A) Workmanship

Complaint Item: 9 - Only added insulation to a small section of a wall instead of the walls to reduce loud shower noise in bedroom.

Investigator’s Observation: Verified.

At the time of this inspection, the insulation/drywall is incomplete. REF: (P) 10

Governing Rule: Violation of any rule adopted by the Registrar; Namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(a): A contractor shall perform all work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) - R4-9-108(A) Workmanship

Complaint Item: 10 - Did not cover and protect window and plumbing while installing tile and need to be cleaned if possible or replaced.

Investigator’s Observation: Verified.

At the time of this inspection, there was residual thin set on plumbing fixtures, and on unprotected surrounding areas...etc. The respondent stated that the job was incomplete, and that clean-up would be part of the finishing process.

Governing Rule: Violation of any rule adopted by the Registrar; Namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(a): A contractor shall perform all work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) - R4-9-108(A) Workmanship

. . .

On May 16, 2025, the Registrar issued a Citation against Respondent, charging possible violations of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(A); A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(16); and A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22).

On or about May 30, 2025, Respondent submitted an Answer to the Registrar.

On or about August 18, 2025, 2025, a Notice of Hearing was issued setting a hearing on September 25, 2025, at the Office of Administrative Hearings, an independent state agency. After a continuance, the hearing was held on November 10, 2025.

At hearing, Investigator Peru testified as to the Registrar’s involvement and the above timeline and findings.

Investigator Peru testified that Respondent was not properly licensed to perform the tile and carpentry work and that the work performed was not per the tile manufacturer standards. Further, while Investigator Peru acknowledged that the project remained incomplete, some items were deemed to be completed as this was “thin-set” attached and those items were not per workmanship standards.

Further, Investigator Peru testified that Respondent had not complied with the Directive as Respondent had not obtain the proper licensure, nor had come to a financial resolution with Complainant.

Complainant testified that Respondent never offered to refund her money and that she had to pay approximately $26,000.00 to have another company complete the remodel.

Complainant also never demanded that the toilet be available for use, rather she requested the same.

Jesse Camuso testified that he was not aware he needed multiple different licenses in order to complete a bathroom remodel as the same was not required in California where he was previously licensed.

Mr. Camuso also testified that the work performed when Investigator Peru conducted his investigation was not completed because Mr. Camuso testified that he was fired from the job.

Mr. Camuso testified that he engaged in some settlement negotiations during the corrective work period, but nothing was finalized.

Administrative notice was taken of Respondent’s prior License record on November 24, 2025. Such prior License record reflected that Respondent’s License No. 351340 was first issued on April 2, 2024, and reflected that there was one open case, namely the present case.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

This matter lies within the Registrar’s jurisdiction. See A.R.S. § 32-1101 et seq.

Complainant bears the burden of proof to establish Respondent’s statutory violations by a preponderance of the evidence. See A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2); A.A.C. R2-19-119(A) and A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1); see also Vazzano v. Superior Court, 74 Ariz. 369, 372, 249 P.2d 837 (1952). “A preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.” Morris K. Udall, Arizona Law of Evidence § 5 (1960).

The preponderance of the evidence established that there was a violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(A).

The preponderance of the evidence established, and Mr. Camuso admitted that he was working outside of the scope of his license in violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(16).

Finally, 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 No. 351340 for three 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 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, November 24, 2025.

/s/ Adam D. Stone

Administrative Law Judge

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

Tom Cole, Director

Registrar of Contractors

PinPoint Plumbing LLC

[email redacted]

Robert S. Elliott, Esq.

Faith Law, PLC

[email redacted]

By: OAH Staff