ALJDEC - Licensing

2025A-03881-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2025-11-10

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

Jeannie Wah-Gorman,

COMPLAINANT

v.

JB Coatings LLC,

License No. ROC 350093,

RESPONDENT

No. 2025A-03881-CHC-ROC

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION

HEARING: October 7, 2025

APPEARANCES:

Complainant: Jeannie Wah-Gorman

Respondent: Jovan Banuelos

Registrar of Contractors: Ruben Perez, 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.

_____________________________________________________________________

FINDINGS OF FACT

JB Coatings, LLC (Respondent) was the holder of License No. 350093 issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (Registrar).

On or about December 3, 2024, Klifferd Gorman (Complainant) entered into a contract with Respondent for, among other things, a business office remodel. The contract failed to include the date the parties entered the contract, estimated date of completion of all work, and notice that the owner had the right to file a written complaint with the registrar for an alleged violation.

On or about April 17, 2025, Complainant filed a Licensed Complaint Form with the Registrar, claiming poor work.

The Registrar assigned the complaint to Investigator Ruben Perez, who issued a Jobsite Inspection Notice on April 18, 2025, scheduling the inspection for May 6, 2025.

Investigator Perez conducted the jobsite inspection on May 6, 2025, and Respondent was present. Following the inspection, Investigator Perez issued a Written Directive From the Registrar to Respondent on May 9, 2025, that provided as follows:

RESTRICTIONS

• You may not perform or hire other contractors to perform work that is outside the scope of your license.

• If your license is currently suspended for administrative reasons, or is inactive, expired, or cancelled, you may not perform any corrective work nor contract in any manner, which includes hiring other contractors to perform work, until the suspension of your license(s) has been lifted or your license(s) has been reactivated.

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

Complaint Item 1: *Stucco work was of poor quality. Bad patchwork & finish. Looks horrible

Investigator’s Observation: Building’s South, West and East walls were observed with unfinished repairs on stucco. Respondent reported they are not finished with stucco repairs. Respondent to correct by appropriate means.

Complaint Item 2: *Sheetrock patches are uneven & horrible

Investigator’s Observation: Interior South wall (near West corner) was observed uneven by up to 5/8”. Respondent to correct by appropriate means.

Complaint Item 3: *Room additional in not symmetrical off by inches on the one side

Investigator’s Observation: Building’s new office was observed with East wall measuring 92 1⁄4” and West wall measuring 91 1⁄4” in length. Respondent reported a building permit was not obtained. Respondent to obtain a building permit (including final inspection) for entire project and correct issues by appropriate means.

Complaint Item 4: *Door frame is of poor quality and uneven

Investigator’s Observation: Wall (corner) near office door was observed with void. Respondent reported they are not finished with project. Respondent reported a building permit was not obtained. Respondent to obtain a building permit (including final inspection) for entire project and correct issues by appropriate means.

Complaint Item 5: * Recess lighting cans installed poor quality. Holes are too big

Investigator’s Observation: Ceiling lights were observed not completely installed. Respondent reported they are not finished with project. Respondent reported a building permit was not obtained. Respondent to obtain a building permit (including final inspection) for entire project and correct issues by appropriate means.

Complaint Item 6: * Didn’t designate separate light switch for each room

Investigator’s Observation: Lamps in multiple rooms were observed to be operated by same electrical switch. Respondent reported a building permit was not obtained. Respondent to obtain a building permit (including final inspection) for entire project and correct issues by appropriate means.

Complaint Item 7: * Roofing poor quality & incomplete

Investigator’s Observation: Roof was observed with unfinished areas (lumber exposed). Respondent reported they are not finished with project. Respondent to correct by appropriate means.

The Written Directive required Respondent to notify Investigator Perez of Respondent’s compliance with the directive prior to 5:00 p.m. on May 28, 2025.

On May 29, 2025, Investigator Perez issued a Compliance Inspection Notice, setting the inspection for May 30, 2025. At the inspection, Respondent reported that no corrections were made pursuant to the directive. All Compliance Items were deemed not completed.

On June 4, 2025, the Registrar issued a Citation against Respondent, finding cause to charge Respondent with violations of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(2)(a); 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; A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(16); and A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22).

Respondent submitted an Answer to the Citation on June 18, 2025. Respondent’s Answer asserted that Klifferd Gorman was advised that permits and engineer/architectural plans were required for the type of project, but Mr. Gorman refused and insisted the project proceed without permits. Mr. Gorman was notified that licensed contractors were subcontracted to provide the HVAC, electrical, and roofing work. Following the roofing work, a general contractor was hired. Respondent was responsible for the painting. The work did not meet the expected professional standard because the job was unfinished due to Complainant firing Respondent. Respondent accepted responsibility for not verifying the scope of his license prior to working on the project and stated that no corrective work was completed during the compliance period because it exceeded the scope of his license.

The Registrar referred the matter to the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH), an independent state agency, for an evidentiary hearing.

On July 1, 2025, the Registrar issued a Notice of Hearing on Contested Case setting the hearing for August 5, 2025.

The hearing convened via Google Meet on August 5, 2025. Prior to hearing, the parties held an informal settlement conference, after which, the parties agreed on the record to a payment plan. The matter was subsequently set for a Status Update due on or before August 25, 2025.

On August 26, 2025, Complainant advised OAH that the agreement had not been honored and requested the matter be set for hearing. A new Notice of Hearing was issued setting the hearing for October 7, 2025.

The hearing was held via Google Meet on October 7, 2025.

Investigator Perez testified in support of his jobsite inspection findings, Written Directive, compliance inspection findings, and the Citation. Specifically, Respondent had a license for painting and wall covering and the scope of the project for which Respondent contracted required a general commercial contractor’s license.

Complainant testified in agreement with the record and Investigator Perez’s testimony. Specifically, Ms. Wah-Gorman was assured by Respondent that licensed contractors would be used to complete the project.

Jovan Banuelos testified that he initially discussed with Mr. Gorman contracting just for painting, but Mr. Gorman wanted to expand the scope of the project and to only hire one contractor. Mr. Banuelos advised Mr. Gorman he could recommend contractors to perform the additional work and “manage” the project for him. Mr. Banuelos further testified that he advised Mr. Gorman that the requested work required permits and engineering plans, but Mr. Gorman stated he did not want to pull permits because it would prolong the project and would add to the cost. Additionally, Mr. Banuelos testified that he advised Mr. Gorman that he would hire licensed contractors for the electrical, roofing, and plumbing work. As the project continued, Mr. Gorman added additional items increasing the cost of the project, requiring Respondent to request a progress payment. Mr. Banuelos testified that Mr. Gorman was aware that because Respondent was not licensed he could not pull permits; therefore, Mr. Gorman would need to hire a general contractor to pull the permits. On questioning, Mr. Banuelos acknowledged he could have refused to do any work for which he was not licensed.

Administrative notice was taken of Respondent’s prior License record on November 7, 2025. According to that record, Respondent’s License No. 350093 was suspended for lack of bond; and there were two open complaints (including the 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.

Respondent’s suspended license does not deprive Complainant of the right to prosecute the complaint or prevent the Registrar from determining the merits of the complaint.

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 departed from or disregarded plans or specifications in violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(2)(a), specifically regarding Compliance Items 3, 4, 5, and 6.

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), specifically regarding Compliance Items 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7.

The preponderance of the evidence established that Respondent failed to comply with this chapter in violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(12), namely the contract requirements in A.R.S. § 32-1158.

The preponderance of the evidence established that Respondent knowingly contracted beyond the scope of its license(s) in violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(16).

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).

“The registrar may impose a civil penalty of not to exceed $500 on a contractor for each violation of subsection A, paragraph 22 of this section.” If a licensee fails to pay the civil penalty, their license is automatically revoked “thirty days after the effective date of the order providing for the civil penalty.” Additionally, any “person who is or was named on a license . . . may not receive a new license under this chapter until the entire civil penalty is paid.”

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Based on the foregoing, it is recommended that on the effective date of the Order, the Registrar shall suspend for five days Respondent’s License No. 350093.

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 within thirty days of the effective date of the Order Respondent shall provide an amended contract to the Registrar which establishes compliance with the requirements in A.R.S. § 32-1158. If Respondent fails to comply, Respondent’s license shall be suspended until it provides a compliant contract.

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

JB Coatings LLC

[email redacted]

Ruben Perez

[email redacted]

Jeannie Wah-Gorman

[email redacted]

By: OAH Staff