ALJDEC - Licensing

2025A-03966-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2025-10-26

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

Darryl Migdol,

COMPLAINANT,

v.

Matthew Owen Bristlin

DBA: Bristlin Cabinets,

License No. ROC 338666,

RESPONDENT.

No. 2025A-03966-CHC-ROC

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION

HEARING: October 15, 2025 at 1:00pm

APPEARANCES: Complainant Darryl Migdol appeared on his own behalf with witness Sharon Migdol. Matthew Bristlin appeared on behalf of Respondent Bristlin Cabinets. Investigator Cliff Corlett on behalf of the Arizona Registrar of Contractors.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Nicole Robinson

EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: Arizona Registrar of Contractors Notice of Hearing Packet (“Packet”).

FINDINGS OF FACT

Matthew Owen Bristlin, DBA: Bristlin Cabinets (“Respondent”) is the holder of License No. ROC 338666 issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (“Registrar”) on June 9, 2022. Respondent has a CR60 Finish Carpentry license which allows the licensee to install and repair millwork in commercial and residential settings. Respondent manufactures its own custom cabinetry and woodworking. In addition, Respondent works with a supplier and installs their prefabricated cabinets.

On or about August 27, 2024, Darryl Migdol (“Complainant”) entered into a contract with Respondent for, among other things, new prefabricated shaker cabinet doors in the kitchen and bathroom at his residential home located in Lake Havasu City, Arizona. Respondent’s supplier for this project was the Cabinet Company located in California. The contract amount was $11,500.00 and Complainant paid the full amount of the contract.

On or about April 21, 2025, the Registrar received a Complaint against Respondent from Complainant alleging poor work with respect to the project.

The Registrar assigned the complaint to Investigator Cliff Corlett. On May 27, 2025, Investigator Corlett conducted a jobsite inspection with Complainant present.

Investigator Corlett issued a Written Directive to Respondent that provided 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 or before June 26, 2025.

. . . .

DIRECTIVE REQUIREMENTS

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

Complaint Item: 3 – DOORS MISALIGN

Investigator’s Observation: Lazy Susan door appears to be “sagging”/misaligned. RESPONDENT SHOULD CORRECT BY APPROPRIATE METHODS.

. . . .

ITEMS NOT REQUIRING CORRECTION

The following complain items require no action by the Respondent:

Complaint Item: 1 – Most of the Cabinets door have cracks, and or noticeable joints painted over.

Investigator’s Observation: A contractor’s responsibility for manufactured surfaces is limited to the manufacturers warranty policies. All construction material joints have some degree of visibility. These cabinet doors and drawer fronts are typical construction. NO CONTRACTOR ACTION REQUIRED.

. . . .

Complaint Item: 2 - STILL NOTICE CHIP REPAIRS

Investigator’s Observation: Touch up paint is an acceptable industry repair for painted cabinets. Kitchens receive a lot of wear and tear. The ROC has no way of knowing when and or how the minor repaired chips occurred. NO CONTRACTOR ACTION REQUIRED.

. . . .

After the deadline in the directive expired, Investigator Corlett was notified that the Lazy Susan listed in Complaint Item 3 was not corrected.

On July 24, 2025, the Registrar issued a Citation against Respondent, charging possible violations of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely Ariz. Admin. Code R4-9-108(A) and Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(22).

Hearing Evidence

Complainant testified that the manufactured shaker doors that Respondent installed had cracks and noticeable joints that were painted over and it was not acceptable. Complainant testified that he wanted the manufacturer, Cabinet Company, to be contacted to replace the shaker cabinet doors. Complainant spoke with the manufacturer, sent photos to them of the installation, and he was told by the manufacturer that they would send out new cabinet doors to Respondent because he is the contractor.

Sharon Migdol, wife of Complainant, concurred with Complainant. In addition, Mrs. Migdol testified that there were “cracks all over” and that it “looks worse now.” Mrs. Migdol further testified that if Complainant would have told them that shaker doors were prone to cracks then they would not have bought that type of cabinet.

Matthew Bristlin, Respondent owner, testified that the “cracks” where the joints meet together are normal for shaker cabinets and were not a defect. Mr. Bristlin testified that he did not ask Cabinet Company to replace the cabinets and he did not receive replacement cabinets. Mr. Bristlin testified that Investigator Corlett agreed with him because Complainant’s complaint regarding the cabinets fall under the Items Not Requiring Correction section of the Written Directive. Mr. Bristlin stated that he did receive a new door for the Lazy Susan, Complaint Item 3, replacement and it is at his workshop. Mr. Bristlin testified that he did not perform the Lazy Susan corrective work prior to the directive deadline but could give the Lazy Susan door to Complainant. Mr. Bristlin stated emphatically that the Lazy Susan worked after his installation and had no idea if it was a hinge or a door issue.

Investigator Corlett reiterated that the cabinet doors were of typical construction and did not qualify as a Respondent workmanship matter.

Administrative notice is taken of Respondent’s prior License record on ROC 338666. Such prior License record reflects that Respondent’s License No. ROC 338666 is Active. Such prior License record also reflects that there were no complaints resulting in discipline 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. A preponderance of the evidence means “[p]roof which leads the trier of fact to find that the existence of the contested fact is more probable than its nonexistence.”

The evidence established that the Registrar did not cite Respondent for any workmanship issues in regards to the aesthetics or installation of the shaker cabinets. In this case, the evidence established that Respondent did not go to Complainant’s property to fix the Lazy Susan, prior to the deadline in the Written Directive. Therefore, Complainant established that Respondent did not complete Complaint Item 3, in a workmanlike manner in violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely Ariz. Admin. Code R4-9-108(A).

Thus, the evidence established that Respondent did not attempt to complete the corrective work following the directive being issued. Therefore, Complainant established that Respondent failed to take appropriate corrective action following a written directive from the Registrar in violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(22).

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Based on the foregoing,

It is recommended that on the effective date of the Order, the Registrar shall not suspend Respondent’s License No. ROC 338666.

It is further recommended that the Registrar require Respondent to pay the sum of $50.00 as a civil penalty pursuant to Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 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 Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1101(A)(5), unless Respondent tenders payment of any outstanding prior civil penalty.

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, October 27, 2025.

/s/ Nicole Robinson

Administrative Law Judge

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

Tom Cole, Director

Registrar of Contractors

c/o Legal Department

1700 W. Washington Street, Suite 105

Phoenix, AZ 85007

[email redacted]

Matthew Owen Bristlin

DBA: Bristlin Cabinets,

3019 McCulloch Blvd N

Lake Havasu City, AZ 86403

[email redacted]

Darryl Migdol

2671 Edgewood Dr.

Lake Havasu City, AZ 86406

[email redacted]

Cliff Corlett

Registrar of Contractors

[email redacted]

By: OAH Staff