ALJDEC - Licensing
2025A-04033-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2025-07-16
IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
Parkway C&A LP,
COMPLAINANT
v.
Macy's Well and Pump LLC
License No. ROC 333893,
RESPONDENT
No. 2025A-04033-CHC-ROC
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION
HEARING: July 16, 2025
APPEARANCES:
COMPLAINANT: Barrett Lindsey, Attorney for Complainant
Brianna Zell
Ted Young
RESPONDENT: No Appearance
REGISTRAR OF CONTRACTORS: Investigator Doug Barrett
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Nedra-Su Kawasaki
EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: Administrative notice was taken of the Notice of Hearing and Hearing Packet submitted by the Registrar of Contractors. Complainant Exhibits 1-5.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Macy’s Well and Pump LLC (Respondent) was the holder of License No. 333893, issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (Registrar) on July 1, 2021.
On or about January 10, 2024, Parkway C&A (Complainant) entered into a contract with Respondent, to perform all work related to well drilling.
On or about April 17, 2025, Complainant filed a Licensed Complaint Form with the Registrar, claiming abandonment.
The Registrar assigned the complaint to Investigator Doug Barrett, who issued a letter of allegation on April 22, 2025, advising Respondent of receipt of the complaint and an opportunity to respond to the allegation within ten (10) days.
No written response was received, but Investigator Barrett had a recorded conversation with Respondent on May 5, 2025, wherein Respondent notified Investigator Barrett that the company was closing with no means to pay and Respondent accordingly waived its right to be directed.
On May 7, 2025, the Registrar issued a Citation against Respondent, finding cause to charge Respondent with violations of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(1).
Respondent submitted an Answer to the Citation on May 20, 2025.
On June 4, 2025, the Registrar issued a Notice of Hearing on Contested Case, setting the hearing for July 16, 2025 at 9:00 a.m. with the Office of Administrative Hearings. The Notice of Hearing was mailed to all parties via USPS First Class mail and emailed to the email addresses on record with the Registrar. A June 26, 2025 Order from the Office of Administrative Hearings advised the parties of how to connect to the hearing via Google meet. The hearing was held via Google Meet at the scheduled time on July 16, 2025.
Respondent did not request that the hearing be continued. Although the start of the hearing was delayed 15 minutes, Respondent did not appear through an authorized member, employee, or attorney. Consequently, Respondent did not present any evidence to defend its license.
Administrative notice is taken of Respondent’s prior license record as reflected on the Registrar’s public website on August 4, 2025. Such prior license record reflects that Respondent’s License No. 333893 was first issued on July 1, 2021 and was revoked on June 10, 2025. Such prior license record also reflects that there are three open complaints, one prior resolved/settled complaint, and six prior complaints resulting in discipline against Respondent’s license.
Complainant appeared with Counsel and testified as to the facts of its complaint.
On January 4, 2024, Complainant paid Respondent $27,127.03 via check. On January 8, 2024, Respondent confirmed receipt of the payment and advised that arrangements would be made later in the week to schedule the start of work.
On January 16, 2024, Respondent informed Complainant that Complainant was the next customer in queue to be scheduled, but a specific date could not be determined due to a delay at the Respondent’s current job.
On January 22, 2024, in response to Complainant’s request for update regarding scheduling, Respondent informed Complainant it had an equipment failure (specifically a mud pump breakdown), but parts for repair were expected that day.
On January 29, 2024, in response to Complainant’s January 25, 2024 request for update, Respondent informed Complainant of another equipment failure (specifically a lost clutch on the mud pump), but delivery of the parts for repair were expected that day.
On February 2, 2024, in response to Complainant’s multiple requests for updates, Respondent informed Complainant of another equipment failure (specifically a blown head gasket on the mud pump). Respondent informed Complainant on February 12, 2024, that they were picking up the mud pump the next day.
On February 19, 2024, in response to Complainant’s request for update, Respondent informed Complainant of another equipment failure (specifically a broken radiator), but expected it to be working by Friday, 5 days from date of email. Additionally, Respondent proposed to move another job in front of Complainant’s.
On March 7, 2024, in response to multiple requests for updates, Respondent informed Complainant it would be onsite for their project “next week,” but no specific date could be given.
On March 12, 2024, Complainant informed Respondent that there was now a delay on their end and no work could be completed until the project owner had finalized the mortgage. On May 2, 2024, Complainant informed Respondent the financing had been complete and asked when they could be placed on the schedule.
On May 9, 2024, after requests for updates on May 7 and 9, 2024, Respondent informed Complainant of another equipment failure (specifically a failed main hydraulic pump on the drill rig) and the repair should be completed in six weeks.
Between May 9, 2024 and July 19, 2024, multiple emails were sent between Complainant and Respondent with Complainant requiring specific information and a manufacturer’s cut sheet for the pump Respondent was to install to provide to the electrical engineer. Unclear, unspecific, and/or inaccurate information was provided during this time.
On July 22, 2024, in response to Complainant’s request for an update, Respondent informed Complainant that they were still waiting on the main shaft to repair the hydraulic pump and provided the manufacturer’s information for Complainant’s engineer to contact directly.
On August 1, 2024, in response to Complainant’s multiple requests for updates, Responded informed Complainant there was no timeline available for when the failed equipment would be repaired.
On August 1, 2024, Complainant requested a conference call with Respondent to discuss next steps; Complainant reached out via phone call to Respondent with no answer; Complainant followed up with an email informing Respondent that due to the contract Complainant had with the project owner, Complainant could no longer wait for Respondent and would need to work with another contractor. Complainant asked for a refund of the deposit.
Complainant received no response from Respondent to this request, nor did Complainant receive a refund.
On September 11, 2024, Respondent informed Complainant that the part for the failed equipment was ready to be picked up on September 12, 2024 and Respondent was ready to “get things rolling.”
On September 12, 2024, in response to Complainant’s request for an update, Respondent informed Complainant that the part was ready to be picked up and installed which would happen on September 16, 2024 and Respondent would work on determining where all their clients fit on the calendar at that time.
On September 17, 2024, in response to Complainant’s request for an update, Respondent informed Complainant that the hydraulic pump was being installed that day.
On September 19, 2024, in response to Complainant’s multiple requests for updates, Respondent informed Complainant that it would be putting “clients in order, with dates, tomorrow” and “everyone will be updated by Monday...you are third on the list.”
On September 25, 2024, in response to Complainant’s request for an update, Respondent informed Complainant that it continued to work on the schedule, but the “current, estimated date will be between October 7-11th, for our company to be on your site.”
On October 9, 2024, Respondent apologized for the (previous) estimated date provided as there was some confusion on Respondent’s end. Additionally, there was another equipment failure (specifically the starter on the rig needed replaced) and they would then revisit the scheduling.
On November 20, 2024, Complainant terminated the contract with Respondent.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
This matter lies with the Registrar’s jurisdiction.
Respondent’s revoked license does not deprive Complainant of the right to prosecute the complaint or prevent the Registrar from determining the merits of the complaint.
The copies of the Notice of Hearing that the Registrar mailed to Respondent at its address and email address of record were reasonable and Respondent is deemed to have received notice of the hearing.
Complainant bears the burden of proof to establish Respondent’s statutory violations 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.”
In the instant matter, Respondent entered into a contract with Complainant in January 2024 to drill a well. However, despite Complainant’s considerable effort to communicate and coordinate with Respondent, between the contract date and November 2024, Respondent did not perform any work.
The evidence established that Respondent submitted a bid for Complainant’s project and did not perform the work in the bid. Accordingly, Complainant established that Respondent abandoned the contract.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Based on the foregoing, it is recommended that on the effective date of the Order, the Registrar shall revoke Respondent’s License No. 333893.
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, August 5, 2025.
/s/ Nedra-Su Kawasaki
Administrative Law Judge
Transmitted by either mail, e-mail, or facsimile to:
Tom Cole, Director
Registrar of Contractors
[email redacted]
Doug Barrett, Investigator
Registrar of Contractors
[email redacted]
Macy's Well and Pump LLC
[email redacted]
Barrett Lindsey
[email redacted]
Parkway C&A LP
[email redacted]
By: OAH Staff