ALJDEC - Licensing
2025A-03381-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2025-11-10
IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
David Ross,
COMPLAINANT
v.
Flipping Contractors LLC,
License No. ROC 333020,
RESPONDENT
No. 2025A-03381-CHC-ROC
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION
HEARING: October 6, 2025
APPEARANCES:
Complainant: David Ross
Kinil Doshi
Respondent: Abraham Moreno
Abel Jimenez
Registrar of Contractors: Todd Anderson, Investigator
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.
Respondent Exhibit 1.
_____________________________________________________________________
FINDINGS OF FACT
Flipping Contractors, LLC (Respondent) was the holder of License No. 333020 issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (Registrar) on April 14, 2021.
On or about October 1, 2024, Uplift Homes, LLC (Complainant) entered into a contract with RBL Consulting, Inc. (RBL) for, among other things, renovation of a building. RBL was an unlicensed entity.
Flipping Contractors, LLC (Respondent) performed work on the project at issue in the capacity of a subcontractor to RBL.
On or about April 3, 2025, David Ross, on behalf of Complainant, filed a Licensed Complaint Form with the Registrar, claiming abandonment and poor work.
The Registrar assigned the complaint to Investigator Todd Anderson, who issued a Jobsite Inspection Notice on April 3, 2025, scheduling the inspection for April 7, 2025.
Investigator Anderson conducted the jobsite inspection on April 7, 2025. Abraham Moreno and Rahima Athari were present on behalf of RBL, and Mauricio “Alex” Chavarria and Abel Jimenez were present on behalf of Respondent.
Following the inspection, Investigator Anderson issued a Written Directive From the Registrar to Respondent on April 16, 2025, that provided as follows:
You are directed to remedy the following violations by the appropriate means:
Complaint Item: 2 - Formica kitchen countertop cut ends were not covered and sealed (edge facing fridge, both sides of stove, and far right
Investigator’s Observation: Verified. The exposed, raw edges of a Formica Countertop are usually finished with edge banding, end caps, or by applying a special paint or sealant. None of these were observed at the Jobsite Inspection. Contractor shall correct by appropriate means.
Complaint Item: 3 - Mini-splits (7) – don’t appear to have the proper covers over the pipes that go through the wall
Investigator’s Observation: Verified. I did not observe the required cover plates. Contractor shall install the missing cover plates.
Complaint Item: 6 - Shower drains in at least bedroom #2 and #6 have exposed plumbers putty on the shower floor side of the drain.
Investigator’s Observation: Verified. I observed what appeared to be excess putty material in the areas described. Contractor shall correct by appropriate means.
Complaint Item: 7 - Hot and cold water in bedroom #6 shower are backwards, but the sink in that bathroom is correct
Investigator’s Observation: Verified. Conditions as described were present. The shower valve in unit #6 appeared to be reversed. Contractor shall correct by appropriate means.
Complaint Item: 8 - New electric panel has 2 breakers that feed a single appliance, not tied together or next to each other
Investigator’s Observation: Verified. Conditions as described were present. These breakers should be connected using handle ties in order to ensure they trip together, providing a common disconnect. Contractor shall correct by appropriate means.
Complaint Item: 10 - Roof – roll of shingle asphalt has bumps left in it which can cause areas that are more likely to leak over time.
Investigator’s Observation: Verified. Conditions as described were present. I observed several areas of wavy Modified Bitumen on the flat section of the newly-installed roof. Contractor shall correct by appropriate means.
Complaint Item: 11 - Roof - The edge of the roof (on the right side towards the back of the house) is not secured and is curling up
Investigator’s Observation: Verified. Conditions as described were present. Contractor shall correct by appropriate means.
Complaint Item: 18 - Electrical Breaker Box for water heater has gap on left side where drywall is missing.
Investigator’s Observation: Verified. Conditions as described were present. Hole in drywall was observed. Contractor shall correct by appropriate means.
Complaint Item: 19 - Shower handle cover missing silicone caulk to prevent water from getting into wall (all 6 bathrooms)
Investigator’s Observation: Verified. Conditions as described were present. The cover was not properly secured. Contractor shall correct by appropriate means.
Complaint Item: 20 - Shower head wall cover missing silicone caulk to prevent water from getting into wall (all 6 bathrooms)
Investigator’s Observation: Verified. Conditions as described were present. The cover was not properly secured. Contractor shall correct by appropriate means.
Complaint Item: 21 - Shower wall top - covered in drywall texture and not sealed to wall effectively
Investigator’s Observation: Verified. Conditions as described were present. Observed drywall overspray in units 2 and 6. Contractor shall correct by appropriate means.
Complaint Item: 22 - Shower wall corners on top have holes, which will allow water into wall
Investigator’s Observation: Verified. Conditions as described were present. I observed cracking of the grout/caulking above the shower in unit #6. Contractor shall correct by appropriate means.
Complaint Item: 26 - LVP Flooring in kitchen - 2 planks installed in middle of floor with glue and left uneven
Investigator’s Observation: Verified. Conditions as described were present. I observed (2) planks in the kitchen area which had lippage greater than 1/32". Contractor shall correct by appropriate means.
Complaint Item: 29 - Above kitchen cabinets holes left in walls used to find studs and not caulked and painted
Investigator’s Observation: Verified. Conditions as described were present. I observed a series of holes in the drywall just above the cabinets. Contractor shall correct by appropriate means.
Complaint Item: 37 - Back door has 2 deep finger prints left on inside of door
Investigator’s Observation: Verified. Conditions as described were present. I observed fingerprints on the back door. Contractor shall correct by appropriate means.
Complaint Item: 42 - Closet hang rod should have enough room below shelf for hangers to be removed without twisting hangers
Investigator’s Observation: Verified. Conditions as described were present. The IRC recommends at least a 4” clearance between the shelf and hanging rod. Contractor shall correct by appropriate means.
Complaint Item: 47 - Many door handle latches and hardware do now have the complete hardware set installed on the door & door frame side.
Investigator’s Observation: Verified. Conditions as described were present. I observed missing and miss-matched striker plates on both front and back doors. Contractor shall correct by appropriate means.
Complaint Item: 49 - Trim nail holes were not caulked and painted across many parts of the house.
Investigator’s Observation: Verified. Conditions as described were present. I observed numerous nail holes in the trim throughout the residence which were not properly filled and sanded. Contractor shall correct by appropriate means.
Complaint Item: 60 - Facia boards on the left side of the house near the peak of the roof don't align and should have been replaced
Investigator’s Observation: Verified. Conditions as described were present. I observed a not properly secured Facia Board located on the west side of the residence. The contract stated "roof service" which would necessarily include re-securing "observable" loose Facia Boards. Contractor shall correct by appropriate means.
Complaint Item: 63 - Mini-Split - Back of house - is masking tape an approved material to hold condensation lines together?
Investigator’s Observation: Refrigerant lines should be held in place using either insulation tape or zip ties. Masking tape is not the appropriate material to be used for this application. Contractor shall correct by appropriate means.
The Written Directive required Respondent to notify Investigator Anderson of Respondent’s compliance with the directive prior to 5:00 p.m. on May 5, 2025.
On May 13, 2025, Investigator Anderson issued a Compliance Inspection Notice, setting the inspection for June 3, 2025. During the inspection, Compliance Items 2, 6, 10, 11, 21, 29, 42, and 49 were deemed not completed.
On June 20, 2025, the Registrar issued a Citation against Respondent, finding cause to charge Respondent with violations of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(A), and A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22).
Respondent submitted an Answer to the Citation on July 5, 2025.
The Registrar referred the matter to the Office of Administrative Hearings, an independent state agency, for an evidentiary hearing.
On July 15, 2025, the Registrar issued a Notice of Hearing on Contested Case setting the hearing for August 21, 2025.
At the scheduled hearing, as a preliminary matter it was noted that although the Citation charged Respondent with violations of both A.R.S. §§ 32-1154(A)(3) and (22), the Notice of Hearing provided A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) as the only matter asserted, omitting A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22). Investigator Anderson stated this was in error and the parties did not agree to waive notice. Therefore, the hearing was continued pending submission of an Amended Notice of Hearing.
An Amended Notice of Hearing was filed on August 21, 2025, and an Order granting a continuance of the hearing to October 6, 2025, was issued.
The hearing was held via Google Meet on October 6, 2025.
Investigator Anderson testified in support of his jobsite inspection findings, Written Directive, compliance inspection findings, and the Citation. Specifically, Investigator Anderson noted that after the Compliance inspection, any remaining items that were not overtly over the minimum standard, but still require additional work, he offered Respondent an opportunity to complete. However, it was at the discretion of Complainant to allow the additional time to complete the work, and in this case, Complainant denied Respondent’s request.
Complainant testified in agreement with Investigator Anderson’s testimony as it related to the record. Specifically, Mr. Ross testified that Investigator Anderson advised it would be nice to allow Respondent additional time and Mr. Ross agreed to the request provided Respondent pay $9,500 to cover his expenses and the inconvenience caused to his tenants. Respondent declined and Mr. Ross denied the request.
Respondent testified it was hired to provide labor only, on a contract for under $50,000 for all work. After the work was completed, a Certificate of Occupancy was issued and tenants moved in. During the compliance period, Mr. Ross was out of town, so Respondent coordinated with the property manager. Respondent used photos provided from the jobsite inspection to guide in the corrective work; however, the effort was complicated by the fact that tenants had moved in furniture. Respondent took photos of the completed work and sent them to Investigator Anderson.
Administrative notice was taken of Respondent’s prior License record on October 6, 2025. According to that record, Respondent’s License No. 333020 was Active and there was one open complaint (instant matter), no disciplined cases, and no resolved/settled complaints 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. Respondent bears the burden of proof to establish an affirmative defense 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 preponderance of the evidence established that Respondent failed to perform all work 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 preponderance of the evidence 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 for one business day Respondent’s License No. 333020.
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 10, 2025.
/s/ Nedra-Su Kawasaki
Administrative Law Judge
Transmitted by either mail, e-mail, or facsimile to:
Tom Cole, Director
Registrar of Contractors
David Ross
[email redacted]
Todd Anderson
[email redacted]
Flipping Contractors LLC
[email redacted]
By: OAH Staff