ALJDEC - Licensing
2025A-03706-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2025-09-09
IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
Ashley Maitland,
COMPLAINANT,
v.
Gradias Home Builder LLC,
ROC License No. 355845,
RESPONDENT.
No. 2025A-03706-CHC-ROC
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION
HEARING: September 08, 2025 at 9:00 AM.
APPEARANCES: Ashley Maitland (“Complainant”) appeared on her own behalf. Ruben Perez, Sr. appeared on behalf of the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (“Registrar”). No appearance(s) by or on behalf of Gradias Home Builder LLC (“Respondent”).
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Jenna Clark.
EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: The Notice of Hearing, including the Registrar’s attached agency file, and July 25, 2025, Hearing Order 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 prior license record as reflected on the Registrar’s public website. On November 27, 2024, the Registrar issued License No. 355845 General Residential B contracting license to Respondent. The license has been renewed through November 30, 2026. Eric C. Gradias is listed as the Qualifying Party and Member on the license. Respondent’s address of record for the license is 1885 W. County 17 3⁄4 St. Somerton, Arizona 85350. Respondent has an active $9,000.00 surety bond on the license issued by Old Republic Surety Company, effective November 08, 2024. The license has no prior disciplinary record.
On April 11, 2025, the Registrar received a narrative complaint from Complainant alleging poor work and abandonment of residential casita renovation project against Respondent’s License No. 355845. The Registrar designated it Complaint No. 2025-03706 and assigned to Ruben Perez Sr. (“Investigator Perez”) for investigation.
On April 14, 2025, Investigator Perez issued a Jobsite Inspection Notification Letter to the parties, advising that he would conduct an inspection of the project on April 30, 2025, at 10:30 a.m. Correspondence was not returned as undeliverable to Respondent.
On April 30, 2025, Investigator Perez inspected the work that had been performed on the project to date. Respondent was not present. Investigator Perez also reviewed the contract-related correspondence between the parties, and took 12 photographs of the project site. When he was finished, Investigator Perez drafted his Inspection Notes. Ultimately, Investigator Perez derived six (6) separate and distinct complaint items from Complaint No. 2025-03706, two (2) which he was able to substantiate against Respondent based on his firsthand observations. Specifically, Investigator Perez determined that complaint items 2 and 4 required corrective work by Respondent. Investigator Perez noted the following:
Contract for this project was dated on 08/05/2024. Local jurisdiction confirmed a building permit is required for this job however, no building permit was obtained for any work done. Respondent to obtain building permit (including final inspection) and correct issues [and] complete project by appropriate means.
(Emphasis added.)
On May 01, 2025, Investigator Perez issued a Written Directive from the Registrar (“Directive”) to Respondent because he substantiated some of Complainant’s complaint allegation(s) against Respondent. Respondent was put on notice that it had until 5:00 p.m. on May 16, 2025, to notify the Registrar of its compliance with the Directive or face discipline pursuant to Arizona Revised Statutes (“Ariz. Rev. Stat.”) §§ 32-1154(A) and 32-1154(E). Correspondence was not returned as undeliverable to Respondent.
On May 05, 2025, Complainant submitted a single-item Addendum Complaint to the Registrar.
On May 08, 2025, Investigator Perez issued an Addendum Jobsite Inspection Notification Letter to the parties, advising that he would conduct an addendum inspection of the project on May 20, 2025, at 10:00 a.m. Correspondence was not returned as undeliverable to Respondent.
On May 19, 2025, Investigator Perez issued a Notice of Rescheduled Addendum Jobsite Inspection to the parties that reset the addendum inspection for May 27, 2025, at 10:00 a.m. Correspondence was not returned as undeliverable to Respondent.
On May 22, 2025, Investigator Perez issued a second Notice of Rescheduled Addendum Jobsite Inspection to the parties that reset the addendum inspection for May 29, 2025, at 11:00 a.m. Correspondence was not returned as undeliverable to Respondent.
On May 29, 2025, Investigator Perez inspected Complainant’s addendum complaint item. Respondent was not present. Investigator Perez took 2 photographs of the project site. When he was finished, Investigator Perez drafted his Addendum Inspection Notes. Ultimately, Investigator Perez substantiated complaint item 7 against Respondent based on his firsthand observations. Investigator Perez noted the following:
Complainant reported respondent damaged brick wall while moving items at jobsite. Fourteen foot section of brick was observed damaged. Contract for this project was dated on 08/05/2024. Complainant reported respondent has not worked on project since 01/12/2025. Respondent to correct and complete project by appropriate means.
(Emphasis added.)
On May 29, 2025, Investigator Perez issued an Addendum Written Directive from the Registrar (“Addendum Directive”) to Respondent because he substantiated Complainant’s addendum complaint allegation against Respondent. Respondent was put on notice that it had until 5:00 p.m. on June 13, 2025, to notify the Registrar of its compliance with the Directive or face discipline pursuant to Ariz. Rev. Stat. §§ 32-1154(A) and 32-1154(E). Correspondence was not returned as undeliverable to Respondent.
On June 20, 2025, Investigator Perez issued a Compliance Jobsite Inspection Notification Letter to the parties, advising that he would conduct an inspection of the project on June 23, 2025, at 10:30 a.m.
On June 20, 2025, Investigator Perez inspected the project site to determine whether Respondent performed any corrective work. He took 8 photographs. When he was finished, Investigator Perez drafted his Compliance Notes. Ultimately, Investigator Perez determined Respondent had not performed corrective work necessary to remediate complaint items 2, 4, or 7, as all items were observed in the same conditional as their original inspection dates.”
On June 23, 2025, Investigator Perez issued a Warning Letter to Respondent to advise that building permit(s) were not obtained for the project in violation of the International Residential Code and the International Building Code. Respondent was further advised that failure to comply with the building codes was a violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(2), which could result in discipline against Respondent’s license including suspension or revocation.
On June 23, 2025, Investigator Perez issued a Warning Letter to Respondent for an alleged violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. §§ 32-1154(A)(12); 32-1158(A) for Respondent’s failure to include all nine (9) required minimum elements in his contracts, including his contract with Complainant. Respondent was further advised that statutory noncompliance could result in discipline against Respondent’s license including suspension or revocation. Correspondence was not returned as undeliverable to Respondent.
On June 23, 2025, Investigator Perez forwarded the matter to the Registrar’s legal department with the issuance of a Citation Recommendation.
On June 26, 2025, the Registrar issued a Citation to Respondent for alleged violation(s) of Ariz. Rev. Stat. §§ 32-1154(A)(1), 32-1154(A)(2)(a), 32-1154(A)(3); Ariz. Admin. Code R4-9-108(a), 32-1154(A)(12); 32-1158, and 32-1154(A)(22). Respondent was given until July 11, 2025, to respond with its Answer or face discipline pursuant to Ariz. Rev. Stat. §§ 32-1154(A)(22) and 32-1155. Correspondence was not returned as undeliverable to Respondent.
On July 11, 2025, the Registrar received Respondent’s timely Answer whereby Mr. Gardias denied all of the allegations at issue. In a Supplemental Written Answer submitted that same date, Mr. Gardias denied abandonment of the project and argued that performance was suspended under Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1185 for nonpayment. Mr. Gardias alleged that Complainant “falsified” the parties’ contract, “forged” his signature, and “misrepresented” facts. Attached, Mr. Gardias provided a Bid Memo that detailed a ten (10) step progress payment schedule for a $29,938.00 project that did not address whether any monies had been paid by Complainant. Ultimately, Mr. Gardias opined that there was “no validity to any of the allegations” in the complaint.
On July 16, 2025, the Registrar referred this matter to the Office of Administrative Hearings (“OAH”), an independent state agency, for an evidentiary hearing on September 08, 2025. Per the July 23, 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 alleged statutory violation(s):
Charge 1: A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(1)
Charge 2: A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(2)(a)
Charge 3: A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3); A.A.C. R4-9-108(a)
Charge 4: A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(12); A.R.S. § 32-1158
Charge 5: A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22)
Hearing Evidence
Complainant testified on her own behalf, and called Investigator Perez as a witness. Although afforded a five (5) minute grace period, Respondent failed to appear , request to appear via alternative means, and/or submit a Motion to Continue. The substantive evidence of record is as follows:
Complainant owns residential property located at 15480 S. Ave. 4E Yuma, Arizona 85365.
On or about August 05, 2024, the parties entered into a $20,151.25 casita renovation construction agreement. Complainant tendered $17,100.00 to Respondent towards their project $16,191.00.
Work on the project commenced August 05, 2024, and stopped on or about January 12, 2025. A building permit, which was required for this project, was not issued by the local building authority prior to Respondent starting work on the project, or anytime thereafter.
From May 01, 2025, through June 13, 2025, License No. 355845 was active and in good standing with the Registrar, and appropriate to address substantiated complaint items 2, 4, and addendum item 7.
Respondent did not communicate with Investigator Perez for the duration of his investigation of Complaint No. 2025-03706.
At no point in time did Respondent allege a denial of access to the project site during the Directive or Addendum Directive’s compliance periods, or request extensions thereof.
Additional Evidence
Investigator Perez testified that he contacted the local building authority and confirmed that Respondent had not submitted an application or plans in an attempt to obtain a permit for the underlying project. Investigator Perez also testified that an updated contract template in compliance with Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1158 had not been submitted by Respondent.
Complainant testified that March 31, 2025, was the last time Respondent communicated with her, and that prior to that Mr. Gradias had sent a slew of incoherent and rambling text message asking her to pay more money for her project. Complainant characterized Mr. Gradias’ final communications as “erratic,” and “concerning.”
Closing Arguments
In closing, Complainant argued that Respondent made her feel unsafe and made her lose trust in its ability to complete her project. Complainant noted that she paid 75% of the project costs upfront, and opined that it was reasonable not to pay the remaining balance until it was complete. Per Complainant, she lost an unknown amount of residual income from her inability to rent out the secondary structure on her property.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
This matter lies within the Registrar’s jurisdiction. The matter was properly brought before OAH.
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.
The Notice of Hearing the Registrar mailed to Respondent’s address of record is sufficient, and Respondent is deemed to have received notice of the hearing in this matter. Because the Registrar mailed all correspondence to Respondent in the same manner and failed to receive any mail returned as undeliverable, Respondent is deemed to have received all correspondence regarding this matter from the Registrar as well.
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.”
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(1) includes among the grounds for suspension, revocation, or other disciplinary action against a contractor’s license, “[a]bandonment of a contract or refusal to perform after submitting a bid on work without legal excuse for the abandonment or refusal.”
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(2)(a) includes among the grounds for suspension, revocation, or other disciplinary action against a contractor’s license, “[d]eparture from or disregard of [p]lans or specifications in any material respect that is prejudicial to another without consent of the owner or the owner's duly authorized representative and without the consent of the person entitled to have the particular construction project or operation completed in accordance with such plans and specifications and code.”
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(3) includes among the grounds for suspension, revocation, or other disciplinary action against a contractor’s license, “[v]iolation of any rule adopted by the registrar.”
Ariz. Admin. Code R4-9-108(a) requires that “[a] contractor shall perform all work in a professional and workmanlike manner.”
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(12) holds, in pertinent part, that among the grounds for suspension or revocation of a contractor’s license is a “[f]ailure in any material respect to comply with this chapter.” Specifically, Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1158 provides that “Any contract in an amount of more than one thousand dollars entered into between a contractor and the owner of a property to be improved shall contain in writing at least the following information:
1. The name of the contractor and the contractor's business address and license number.
2. The name and mailing address of the owner and the jobsite address or legal description.
3. The date the parties entered into the contract.
4. The estimated date of completion of all work to be performed under the contract.
5. A description of the work to be performed under the contract.
6. The total dollar amount to be paid to the contractor by the owner for all work to be performed under the contract, including all applicable taxes.
7. The dollar amount of any advance deposit paid or scheduled to be paid to the contractor by the owner.
8. The dollar amount of any progress payment and the stage of construction at which the contractor will be entitled to collect progress payments during the course of construction under the contract.
9. That the property owner has the right to file a written complaint with the registrar for an alleged violation of section 32-1154, subsection A. The contract shall contain the registrar's telephone number and website address and shall state that complaints must be made within the applicable time period as set forth in section 32-1155, subsection.”
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(22) provides, in pertinent part, that “[a] holder of a license may not fail to take appropriate corrective action to comply with this chapter or rules adopted pursuant to this chapter without valid justification within a reasonable period of time after receiving a written directive from the registrar. The written directive shall set forth the time within which the contractor is to complete the remedial action. The time permitted for compliance shall not be less than fifteen days from the date of issuance of the directive. A license shall not be revoked or suspended nor shall any other penalty be imposed for a violation of this paragraph until after a hearing has been held. The Registrar has the authority to issue license discipline under this provision, including summary suspension, revocation, or imposing a civil penalty or recovery fund award.
Statutes shall be liberally construed to affect their objects and to promote justice. In interpreting a statute, “[w]e first consider the language of the statute and, if it is unclear, turn to other factors, including ‘the statute’s context, subject matter, historical background, effects, consequences, spirit, and purpose.”
Statutes should be interpreted to provide a fair and sensible result. “In applying a statute its words are to be given their ordinary meaning unless the legislature has offered its own definition of the words or it appears from the context that a special meaning was intended.”
The Tribunal is required to apply equitable principles when rendering decisions. The application of equity entails offering a remedy to avoid an unconscionable or unjust result.
The material facts in the case at bar are not in dispute.
It is undisputed that the parties entered into a $20,151.25 casita renovation construction agreement, and that Respondent received $16,191.00 from Complainant towards the project. It is also undisputed that Respondent commenced work on the project without first obtaining an appropriately issued building permit or ensuring one had already been issued. It is also undisputed that although the parties entered into their agreement on or about August 05, 2024, no substantial work had been performed on the project since January 12, 2025. It is also undisputed that when Respondent was on the project site, Mr. Gradias damaged a 14ft. section of Complainant’s fence, and failed to repair it. It is further undisputed that although Respondent received the Registrar’s Directive, it took no action to complete and/or remediate the underlying project or settle the dispute with Complainant.
Therefore, the only issue in dispute is whether Respondent raised a sufficient justification or excuse for failing to adhere to the Registrar’s Directive and remediate Complainant’s project. This is an affirmative defense that Respondent bears the burden to establish. 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. Respondent did not sustain its burden. There is no evidence in the record that excuses or otherwise justifies Respondent’s inaction and/or lack of performance/competence on this project. The evidentiary record in this matter reflects that Respondent’s performance on the underlying project failed to meet the Registrar’s minimum workmanship standards, Respondent abandoned the project, the underlying contract was not statutorily compliant, and that there are no affirmative defense(s) in the record. Here, no plans or permits were obtained for Complainant’s project, and no work was performed in line with monies Complainant tendered for the project. Additionally, there is no evidence of record that substantiates any of the allegations Mr. Gradias made against Complainant in Respondent’s Answer.
Notably, Respondent’s absence from this administrative proceeding is a factor in aggravation, and establishes Respondent’s unwillingness to submit to regulation by the Registrar.
Because Complainant has established Respondent’s violations of Ariz. Rev. Stat. §§ 32-1154(A)(1), 32-1154(A)(2)(a), 32-1154(A)(3); Ariz. Admin. Code R4-9-108(a), 32-1154(A)(12); 32-1158, and 32-1154(A)(22), Complainant has also established cause for the Registrar to discipline Respondent’s contractor’s license.
Complainant may petition the Registrar’s Recovery Fund for financial recompense in this matter.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Based on the foregoing,
IT IS RECOMMENDED that that on the effective date of the Final Order in this matter, Respondent Gradias Home Builder LLC, ROC License No. 355845, shall be revoked.
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, September 12, 2025.
Office of Administrative Hearings
/s/ Jenna Clark
Administrative Law Judge
Transmitted electronically to:
Tom Cole, Director
c/o Legal Department
Registrar of Contractors
1700 W. Washington St., Ste. 105
Phoenix, AZ 85007
[email redacted]
Ashley Maitland, Complainant
15480 S. Ave. 4E
Yuma, AZ 85365
[email redacted]
Gradias Home Builder LLC
c/o Eric Gradias, Agent
1885 W. County 17 3/4 St.
Somerton, AZ 85350
[email redacted]
By: OAH Staff