ALJDEC - Licensing

2025A-04053-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2025-10-07

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

Rob Corcoran,

COMPLAINANT

v.

Superb Elements Stone LLC

License No. ROC 351770,

RESPONDENT

No. 2025A-04053-CHC-ROC

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION

HEARING: September 19, 2025

APPEARANCES: Brett Austin Baillio, Esq. appeared on behalf of Complainant Rob Corcoran. Registrar of Contractors investigator Steven Avila appeared via Google Meet.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Adam D. Stone

EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: Complainant’s Exhibits 1-13 were admitted into evidence.

_____________________________________________________________________

FINDINGS OF FACT

Superb Elements Stone, LLC (Respondent) is the holder of License No. 351770 issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (Registrar).

On or about December 18, 2024, Complainant hired Respondent to remodel several areas in his home in Scottsdale, Arizona, and Complainant made a down payment of $29,517.17 to Respondent.

On or about April 22, 2025, the Registrar received a Complaint against Respondent from Complainant alleging poor work with respect to project.

The Registrar assigned the complaint to Investigator Steven Avila. The jobsite inspection was performed on May 15, 2025.

Investigator Avila then issued a Written Directive on or about June 13, 2025, which provided in pertinent part 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 June 30, 2025.

. . .

DIRECTIVE REQUIREMENTS

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

Complaint Item: 2 - No work ever performed despite repeated demands for progress

Investigator’s Observation: At the time of the inspection it was determined that the respondent has not fulfilled the contractual obligations of the agreed upon scope of work. The respondent performed demo at the residence approximately 11/2024 during which the sinks in the intended areas were removed and left unusable. After demo it was stated that no additional work was performed in the residence and therefore none of the agreed upon product was installed. Allegation is verified.

Respondent's license is currently suspended and therefore no additional work can be performed until the respondent is able to obtain an active license.

Respondent shall complete project per original contract agreement, properly executed change orders, verbal agreements, local building codes and manufacturers installation instructions.

Governing Rule: Abandonment of a contract or refusal to perform after submitting a bid on work without legal excuse for the abandonment or refusal.

A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(1)....

On July 10, 2025, the Registrar issued a Citation against Respondent, charging possible violations of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely R4-9-108(a); and A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22).

On or about July 25, 2025, Respondent submitted an Answer to the Registrar.

On or about August 12, 2025, a Notice of Hearing was issued setting a hearing on August 9, 2025, at the Office of Administrative Hearings, an independent state agency. The Notice of Hearing was sent to Respondent’s mailing and e-mail address of record. Further, on August 14, 2025, the tribunal issued an Order with the Google Meet information and provided the same to both parties via their email addresses of record. Respondent is deemed to have received notice of the hearing. A.R.S. §§ 41-1092.04 and 41-1092.05(D).

Although the start of the hearing was delayed 15 minutes, Respondent did not appear through an authorized member, employee, or attorney, nor did it request that the hearing be continued. Consequently, Respondent did not present any evidence to defend its license.

At hearing, Investigator Avila testified as to the Registrar’s involvement and the above timeline and findings.

Investigator Avila testified that Respondent failed to appear at the jobsite inspection, and that at the time the Directive was issued, Respondent’s license was suspended for lack of bond. Investigator Avila testified that while, Respondent could not perform the corrective work due to the license suspension, he could have reinstated his license by renewing his bon and/or making a settlement with Complainant.

Mr. Corcoran testified that after the contract was signed and he made his down payment, Respondent never appeared to commence work. Further, Mr. Corcoran testified that he hired his own worker to perform the demolition and would not have done so at that time if he knew Respondent would not fulfill the contract.

Finally, Mr. Corcoran testified that he wanted his money back from Respondent.

Administrative notice was taken of Respondent’s prior License record on October 7, 2025. Such prior License record reflected that Respondent’s License No. 351770 was first issued on April 24, 2024, and reflected that there were two open cases, one of which included the present case, and two “Disciplined Cases”. Finally, the License record reflected that Respondent’s license had been revoked as of September 17, 2025.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

This matter lies within the Registrar’s jurisdiction. See A.R.S. § 32-1101 et seq.

Complainant bears the burden of proof to establish Respondent’s statutory violations by a preponderance of the evidence. See A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2); A.A.C. R2-19-119(A) and A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1); see also Vazzano v. Superior Court, 74 Ariz. 369, 372, 249 P.2d 837 (1952). “A preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.” Morris K. Udall, Arizona Law of Evidence § 5 (1960).

The preponderance of the evidence established that there was no work performed by Respondent after taking a significant deposit. While this violation perhaps would have been better classified as “abandonment” under A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(1), it also was a violation under A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely R4-9-108(A), as taking the down payment without completing work was certainly not “workmanlike”.

The preponderance of the evidence also established that Respondent failed to correct the project or otherwise reach a settlement with Complainant Therefore, Complainant 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).

Finally, given the egregious nature of Respondent’s action, the tribunal believes that restitution is appropriate pursuant to A.R.S. §32-1156.01(A).

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. 351770.

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 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 A.R.S. § 32-1101(A)(7), unless Respondent tenders payment of any outstanding prior civil penalty.

It is further recommended that Respondent pay restitution to Complainant in the amount of $29,517.17.

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, October 7, 2025.

/s/ Adam D. Stone

Administrative Law Judge

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

Tom Cole, Director

Registrar of Contractors

Superb Elements Stone LLC

[email redacted]

[email redacted]

Brett Austin Baillio, Esq.

[email redacted]

By: OAH Staff