ALJDEC - Licensing

2025A-03958-NPC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2025-11-14

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

Alpha One Network,

COMPLAINANT,

v.

OMS Communications Group, LLC

License No. ROC 357033,

RESPONDENT.

No. 2025A-03958-NPC-ROC

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION

HEARING: August 27, 2025, with further hearing on October 14, 2025; the record closed on October 31, 2025

APPEARANCES: Christian Lueders, Esq. represented Complainant Alpha One Network. Roozbeh Sadeghi was present on behalf of Complainant Alpha One Network. Ryan Brooking and Adam Buckler appeared on behalf of Respondent OMS Communications Group, LLC.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Sondra J. Vanella

EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: Complainant Alpha One Network’s Exhibits 1 through 5; Respondent OMS Communications Group, LLC’s Exhibits A.1., A.2., A.3, photo numbers 1201 through 1207; B, B.1, C, C.1, I (EWCR Form)

FINDINGS OF FACT

OMS Communications Group, LLC (“Respondent”) is the holder of License Number 357033 issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (“Registrar”). Ryan Brooking is Respondent’s Qualifying Party and owner.

Alpha One Network (“Complainant”) filed a Complaint against Respondent with the Registrar alleging that Respondent had failed to pay Complainant the sum of $15,015.25 for the performance of installing fiber optic wiring and underground work. Respondent was hired by MetroNet to be the general contractor for the project and Respondent hired Complainant as a subcontractor.

The parties were unable to resolve their differences. The Registrar issued a Citation against Respondent for its alleged violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(10).

Hearing Evidence

On February 19, 2025, Complainant entered into a written contract with Respondent, and Complainant began its work on the project on February 20, 2025. Complainant was based out of Utah, and mobilized its crew of six to perform its scope of work in Arizona. Complainant’s crew consisted of its owner, Roozbeh Sadeghi, and five employees. Complainant utilized its own trucks, trailers, and horizontal bore machine.

Complainant’s scope of work included boring and installing 3,300 linear feet of fiber optic wiring along West St. John’s Avenue and 63rd Avenue in Glendale, Arizona. Complainant had agreed to this scope of work based upon what it believed it could accomplish during the course of one week. Respondent had hired other subcontractors to perform the same scope of work in other locations, as this work was being performed in a residential neighborhood.

On February 20, 2025, Complainant’s workers met with MetroNet and Respondent’s representative and project supervisor, Marcus Penney. Mr. Sadeghi testified that Mr. Penney showed Complainant the location where Complainant was to start its scope of work. Mr. Sadeghi testified that on the first span of Complainant’s scope of work, all of the utilities were pre-marked. Mr. Sadeghi explained that work could not have begun if all utilities had not been clearly marked. Mr. Sadeghi testified that as Complainant proceeded with its work and completed the first span, Complainant had noted that utilities still needed to be marked by the various utility companies, and this delayed Complainant’s work, as well as damage to utility lines caused by other subcontractors. Mr. Sadeghi offered to call the utility locators for Respondent and did so after Mr. Penney provided him the phone numbers for the utility locators. Mr. Sadeghi contended that it was Respondent’s responsibility to have the utilities marked. Mr. Sadeghi further testified that Complainant had to stop work at 3:00 p.m. on weekdays because the location where Complainant was working was located within a school zone.

Mr. Sadeghi testified that Complainant began working on the project on a Thursday and continued working through that Saturday, laying pipe and pulling mule tape through the pipe which is used to pull the fiber optic wire through the underground conduits.

Mr. Sadeghi testified that Mr. Penney was Respondent’s only representatives on site and that he saw him two to three times per day. MetroNet representative were on site to direct and guide the project. Mr. Sadeghi testified that he received feedback in “real time” regarding specifications for the project, and that Complaint completed 1,725 linear feet of its scope of work.

On March 3, 2025, Complainant returned to the jobsite and noted that only the water utility was marked, however, gas and electric utilities were not marked. The utilities could take up to 72 hours to complete its markings. Mr. Sadeghi testified that in addition to waiting for the utilities to mark their lines, the forecast called for rain and the work could not be performed in the rain. Consequently, Mr. Sadeghi informed Mr. Penney that Complainant was returning to Utah and would return to the project when the utilities were marked.

On Friday, March 7, 2025, Mr. Sadeghi returned to the jobsite and inquired of Mr. Penney as to how Complainant would be paid for its work. Mr. Penney instructed Mr. Sadeghi to speak with Adam Buckler, co-owner of Respondent. Mr. Buckler informed Mr. Sadeghi that because Complainant had not completed its scope of work, Complainant was not yet entitled to receive any payment. Mr. Sadeghi told Respondent that Complainant would return to the jobsite on Monday, however on Sunday, March 9, 2025, Mr. Buckler texted Mr. Sadeghi to inform him that Respondent had been terminated by MetroNet.

Mr. Sadeghi informed Mr. Buckler of the amount Respondent owed Complainant for its work on the project via letter, text, and via phone call. Mr. Buckler told Mr. Sadeghi that Complainant would not be paid for its work.

Mr. Sadeghi acknowledged that Complainant had to complete “minor” corrections, and asserted that Complainant did so based upon the gig sheet that was provided by Respondent to Complainant. One of the items set forth on the gig sheet indicated that Complainant had to fill the holes that it bored, however, Mr. Sadeghi contended that Respondent was to supply the fill for the holes and Complainant had difficulty in procuring the fill from Respondent and therefore, he had to procure the fill. Regarding other items on the gig sheet, Mr. Sadeghi testified that Complainant was “waiting on parts” from Respondent. Mr. Penney had sent Mr. Sadeghi photographs of the work that needed to be corrected. Mr. Sadeghi testified that Complainant performed the corrections.

Mr. Sadeghi testified that there were no complaints regarding Complainant’s work product.

Adam Buckler, co-owner of Respondent, testified that Respondent was the prime contractor for the project and managed the workflow from MetroNet. Respondent hired Complainant as a subcontractor. Mr. Buckler testified that Complainant requested that it not be given a large scope of work, and that it could accomplish 3,300 linear feet of work. Mr. Buckler explained that payment was to be made upon completion and approval of the scope of work.

Mr. Buckler testified regarding the timeline of Complainant’s presence on the project. The parties contracted on February 19, 2025, after a “lengthy discussion.” Complainant’s first day on the job was February 20, 2025, during which time, Complainant met with MetroNet, obtained badges, standards, took part in safety preparation meetings, and learned the expectations of MetroNet and the utilities involved. Complainant’s first day of field work was Friday, February 21, 2025. Complainant also performed field work on Saturday, February 22, 2025, and Monday February 24, 2025, through Thursday, February 27, 2025, on which date, gig sheets were distributed to the various subcontractors, including Complainant. The gig sheets listed the unsatisfactory installation practices observed by Respondent/MetroNet.

Mr. Buckler testified that Complainant did not perform any drilling work on Friday, February 28, 2025, or Saturday March 1, 2025. Complainant did not perform any work on Sunday, March 2, 2025. On Monday, March 3, 2025, Complainant did not perform any work, however, was required to move its equipment from the church parking lot where it had staged its equipment.

Mr. Buckler testified that there was no agreement for Complainant to take time off from working on the project, and when Complainant notified Respondent that it had intended to do so, Respondent notified MetroNet and MetroNet evaluated the jobsite. MetroNet noted significant damages and that Complainant had not marked its drilling depths. Respondent provided several photograph that depict deficiencies in Complainant’s work, such as not replacing the core, not noting the bore depths or the depths of the APS lines, not pulling the mule tape, missing mule tape, missing ground rod, and a missing tracer lock, as well as a crushed water casing, and two conduits that were too long.

Mr. Buckler testified that it was Complainant’s responsibility, as the contractor hired to perform the boring, to ensure that the utility markings were accurate and that Complainant had the opportunity to walk the jobsite and proceeded with its work.

Mr. Buckler testified that Respondent has not yet received the bill for the replacement of the crushed water casing from the water utility. Respondent was compelled to install the mule string that Complainant was supposed to install due to the fact that without mule string, the conduit cannot be installed.

Complainant was provided with a gig list on February 27, 2025, that included five items to be corrected as follows:

6427 St. John - pipe out of ground

6420 St. John – needs all hardware in box

6366 St. John – no copper or 3 way switch in box

6342 St. John box incomplete needs all hardware in box

1706 63rd Lane – pipe is out of ground

Mr. Buckler testified that there was no evidence that Complainant addressed any of the items delineated on the gig sheet.

Mr. Buckler testified that after Complainant left the job, Respondent was removed from the project by MetroNet. MetroNet filled in the holes that were left, re-marked the boring depths, and hired another contractor to repair damages.

On September 26, 2025, Respondent received a bill from MetroNet for damages in the total amount of $251,436.61, some of which was attributable to the location where Complainant performed its scope of work, at West St. John’s Avenue and 63rd Avenue.

Mr. Buckler testified that Respondent did not pay Complainant anything because Complainant left the jobsite without completing its scope of work and Respondent had not received an invoice until after the Complaint in this matter was filed. Moreover, the invoice does not reflect the correct length of work performed by Complainant as the invoice states 1725 linear feet, yet the redlines reflect 1463 linear feet. Mr. Buckler testified that in order to receive payment, Complainant would have had to submit an invoice and completed redlines, and Complainant failed to do so.

Additionally, Respondent was removed from the project by MetroNet and was told by MetroNet that another contractor would repair and complete Complainant’s scope of work. Mr. Buckler asserted that the damages attributable to Complainant exceeded the amount of Complainant’s invoice. Specifically, Mr. Buckler testified that MetroNet had to remove 375 linear feet of concrete and then had to restore the 375 linear feet of concrete in the precise area where Complainant performed its work, 63rd Avenue and West St. John’s Avenue, for a total cost of $30,000.00 that was back charged to Respondent. The removal of the concrete was necessary due to the fact that Complainant did not mark its boring depths and therefore, the concrete had to be removed to verify that MetroNet’s lines were at least a foot away from APS utility lines. Mr. Buckler credibly testified that there were no other subcontractors working in the location where Complainant was working, and therefore, none of the corrective work can be attributed to any other subcontractor. Further, Complainant only completed half of its scope of work, necessitating the hiring of another contractor to complete Complainant’s scope of work.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

The burden of proof at an administrative hearing falls to the party asserting a claim, right, or entitlement and the standard of proof on all issues in this matter is by a preponderance of the evidence. A party asserting an affirmative defense has the burden of establishing the affirmative defense 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.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(10) includes among the grounds for suspension, revocation, or other disciplinary action against a contractor’s license:

Failure by a licensee or agent or official of a licensee to pay monies in excess of $750 when due for materials or services rendered in connection with the licensee's operations as a contractor unless the licensee proves that the licensee lacks the capacity to pay and has not received sufficient monies as payment for the particular construction work project or operation for which the services or materials were rendered or purchased.

The Administrative Law Judge finds that although Complainant performed several days’ worth of work on the project, Complainant did not complete more than half of the scope of work it undertook to perform, and failed to perform corrective work that was brought to Complainant’s attention through the gig sheet. Moreover, Respondent presented credible and probative evidence that Complainant’s deficient work was at least partially the reason why Respondent was terminated from the project by MetroNet, and Complainant’s deficient work resulted in a minimum of $30,000.00 of corrective work that MetroNet back charged to Respondent. This amount far exceeds the amount that Complainant seeks as payment from Respondent.

The credible and probative evidence of record established that Respondent does not owe Complainant any monies for the work performed by Complainant given the evidence of deficient work and the back charges that Respondent has incurred as a result. Therefore, Respondent established by a preponderance of the evidence, as an affirmative defense, that the back charges for Complainant’s deficient work far exceeded the amount Complainant has claimed is due.

Therefore, Complainant failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(10). Consequently, grounds do not exist to impose discipline against Respondent’s license.

RECOMMENDed order

Based on the foregoing, it is recommended that the Registrar dismiss Complaint Number 2025-03958.

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 14, 2025.

/s/ Sondra J. Vanella

Administrative Law Judge

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

Tom Cole, Director

Registrar of Contractors

Christian Lueders

Guardian Law Group

[email redacted]

OMS Communications Group, LLC

[email redacted]

Alpha One Network

[email redacted]

By: OAH Staff