ALJDEC - Licensing

2025A-04093-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2025-08-19

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

Janett Ruiz,

COMPLAINANT,

v.

Macy's Well and Pump LLC

ROC License No. 333893,

RESPONDENT.

No. 2025A-04093-CHC-ROC

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION

HEARING: August 19, 2025 at 1:00 PM.

APPEARANCES: David Ruiz appeared on behalf of Janett Ruiz (“Complainant”). Todd Anderson appeared on behalf of the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (“Registrar”). No appearance(s) by or on behalf of Macy’s Well and Pump LLC (“Respondent”). Complainant observed.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Jenna Clark.

EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: The Notice of Hearing on Contested Case (“Notice of Hearing”), including the Registrar’s attached agency file, Complainant Exhibits 3-7, and July 11, 2025, Hearing Order were admitted into the evidentiary record.

_____________________________________________________________________

After review of the hearing record in this matter, the undersigned Administrative Law Judge makes the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, and issues this Recommended Order to the Director of the Registrar.

FINDINGS OF FACT

Background and Procedure

Pursuant to Arizona Administrative Code (“Ariz. Admin. Code”) R4-9-117, Administrative Notice is taken of Respondent’s prior license record as reflected on the Registrar’s public website. On July 01, 2021, the Registrar issued License No. 333893 Specialty Dual CR-53 Water Well Drilling contracting license to Respondent. Although the license had been renewed through July 31, 2025, it was revoked by the Registrar on June 19, 2025. Daniel Michael Macy is listed as the Manager. Mr. Macy and Brent Lee Macy had been respectively listed as the Qualifying Party and Member on the license, but are noted to have disassociated effective June 10, 2025, and June 12, 2024. Respondent’s address of record for the license is 24390 E. Peace Ln. Florence, Arizona 85132. Respondent had a $6,750.00 surety bond on the license, effective June 29, 2021, that has since been cancelled. The license has been disciplined on six (6) prior occasions, and has had one (1) prior complaint settled or otherwise resolved against it. Currently, the license has four (4) open complaints against it; one of which is presumed to be related to this matter.

On or about April 23, 2025, the Registrar received a narrative complaint from Complainant against Respondent’s License No. 333893 alleging abandonment of a residential well installation project. The Registrar designated it Complaint No. 2025-04093 and assigned to Todd Anderson (“Investigator Anderson”) for investigation.

On May 02, 2025, Investigator Anderson issued a Jobsite Inspection Notification Letter to the parties, advising that he would conduct an inspection of the project on May 21, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. Correspondence was not returned as undeliverable to Respondent.

On May 21, 2025, Investigator Anderson inspected the work that had been performed on the project to date, or lack thereof. Respondent was not present. Investigator Anderson also reviewed the contract-related correspondence between the parties, and took 5 photographs of the project site. When he was finished, Investigator Anderson drafted his Inspection Notes. Ultimately, Investigator Anderson derived a single distinct complaint items from Complaint No. 2025-04093, which he substantiated based on his firsthand observations. Specifically, Investigator Anderson determined that after Respondent took a sizeable down payment from Complainant it never commenced work on the project, save procurement of a permit from the local building authority, in violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. §§ 32-1154(A)(1) and 32-1154-(A)(3); Ariz. Admin. Code R4-9-108(b). Per documentation provided by Complainant, Investigator Anderson also determined that January 15, 2025, was the last time Respondent communicated with Complainant.

On May 22, 2025, Investigator Anderson issued a Written Directive from the Registrar (“Directive”) to Respondent because he substantiated Complainant’s complaint allegation(s) against Respondent. Respondent was put on notice that it had until 5:00 p.m. on June 06, 2025, to notify the Registrar of its compliance with the Directive or face discipline pursuant to Ariz. Rev. Stat. §§ 32-1154(A) and 32-1154(E). Correspondence was not returned as undeliverable to Respondent.

On June 09, 2025, Investigator Anderson issued a Warning Letter to Respondent for an alleged violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1158(A) for Respondent’s failure to include all nine (9) required minimum elements in his contracts, including its contract with Complainant. Correspondence was not returned as undeliverable to Respondent.

On June 09, 2024, Investigator Anderson forwarded the matter to the Registrar’s legal department with the issuance of a Pencil Cite. Therein, Investigator Anderson specifically noted that Respondent had not provided any response to the complaint, and had failed to comply with the Directive or request an extension thereof.

On June 10, 2024, the Registrar issued a Citation to Respondent for alleged violations of Ariz. Rev. Stat. §§ 32-1154(A)(1), 32-1154(A)(3); Ariz. Admin. Code R4-9-108(b), and 32-1154(A)(22). Respondent was given until June 25, 2024, to respond with its Answer or face discipline pursuant to Ariz. Rev. Stat. §§ 32-1154(A)(22) and 32-1155. Correspondence was not returned as undeliverable to Respondent.

On June 23, 2025, the Registrar received a timely Answer on behalf Respondent from Mr. Macy, whereby he offered the following:

[Respondent] has closed permanently, and has filed with the [Registrar] to cancel [License No. 333893]. [Respondent] made this decision due to major equipment failure and no employees to get the work completed correctly.

On or about June 27, 2025, the Registrar referred this matter to the Office of Administrative Hearings (“OAH”), an independent state agency, for an evidentiary hearing on August 19, 2025. Per the July 08, 2025, Notice of Hearing the issue(s) to be determined are whether the Registrar has cause to discipline Respondent’s license based on the following alleged statutory violations:

Charge 1: A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(1)

Charge 2: A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) – A.A.C. R4-9-108(b)

Charge 3: A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22)

Hearing Evidence

Mr. Ruiz testified on behalf of Complainant and called Investigator Anderson as a witness. Although afforded a five (5) minute grace period, Respondent failed to appear or submit a Motion to Continue. The substantive evidence of record is as follows:

Complainant, along with her spouse, Mr. Ruiz, owns residential property located at 10024 S. 43rd Ave. Laveen, Arizona 85339. Construction of the residential structure is ongoing. A Certificate of Occupancy has not been issued by the local building authority.

On or about December 04, 2023, the parties entered into a $22,502.94 residential well installation contract. License No. 333893 was in active status and in good standing with the Registrar at this time.

Complainant tendered a single $11,251.49 payment to Respondent for the project.

On February 02, 2024, Respondent tendered a $150.00 fee to the Arizona Department of Water Resources for the underlying project.

On May 28, 2024, Respondent advised Complainant that its equipment was out of commission due to damage, and that the project had to be delayed until it could be repaired.

On August 20, 2024, Respondent advised Complainant that a part was on “backorder” and would not ship until August 26, 2024.

On September 03, 2024, Respondent advised Complainant that the outstanding part would be delivered by the end of that week.

On December 05, 2024, Respondent advised Complainant that the project would be complete before March 2025, and that it would take approximately seven (7) days to complete.

On January 16, 2025, Respondent advised that repairs to its equipment had proven unsuccessful, and that it was seeking the assistance of a new mechanic. That was the last time Respondent initiated contact with Complainant.

Although License No. 333893 was in active status and in good standing with the Registrar between May 22, 2025, and June 06, 2025, Respondent did not perform any corrective work on the project or otherwise try to complete it per contract terms. Respondent did not hire any appropriately licensed subcontractor to address the Directive, nor did Respondent attempt to settle the underlying dispute with Complainant.

At no point during the Directive’s compliance period, or anytime thereafter, did Respondent request an extension thereof, or allege a denial of access to the project site to the Registrar.

Additional Evidence

Investigator Anderson testified that “going out of business” was not a valid justification or excuse for not addressing the Registrar’s Directive. Per Investigator Anderson, the Registrar maintained jurisdiction over License No. 333893 despite its current status.

Mr. Ruiz testified that between February 28, 2024, and February 13, 2025, Respondent posted five (5) times to its social media account with images that depicted use of the equipment Respondent alleged was “out of commission” and put Complainant’s project “on hold.”

Mr. Ruiz also testified that once construction of the home is complete, the Laveen property will be Complainant’s primary residence.

Closing Arguments

Complainant declined to provide a closing argument.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

This matter lies within the Registrar’s jurisdiction. The matter was properly brought before OAH.

The purpose of the Registrar’s licensing statutes is to protect the public from unscrupulous, unqualified, and financially irresponsible contractors.

The Registrar may resolve contractual disputes if such resolution in ancillary to its regulatory mission and may penalize a contractor’s license by ordering payment of restitution if a proven statutory violation was not remedied by corrective action.

The Notice of Hearing the Registrar mailed to Respondent’s address of record is sufficient, and Respondent is deemed to have received notice of the hearing in this matter. Because the Registrar mailed all correspondence to Respondent in the same manner and failed to receive any mail returned as undeliverable, Respondent is deemed to have received all correspondence regarding this matter from the Registrar as well.

Complainant bears the burden of proof to establish cause for the Registrar to discipline Respondent’s license by a preponderance of the evidence. Respondent bears the burden to establish factors in mitigation of the penalty and affirmative defenses 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 preponderance of the evidence is “[t]he greater weight of the evidence, not necessarily established by the greater number of witnesses testifying to a fact but by evidence that has the most convincing force; superior evidentiary weight that, though not sufficient to free the mind wholly from all reasonable doubt, is still sufficient to incline a fair and impartial mind to one side of the issue rather than the other.”

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(11) includes among the grounds for suspension, revocation, or other disciplinary action against a contractor’s license, “Abandonment of a contract or refusal to perform after submitting a bid on work without legal excuse for the abandonment or refusal.”

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(3) includes among the grounds for suspension, revocation, or other disciplinary action against a contractor’s license, “[v]iolation of any rule adopted by the registrar.”

Ariz. Admin. Code R4-9-108(b) requires that “[a] contractor shall perform all work in accordance with any applicable building codes and professional industry standards.”

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(22) provides, in pertinent part, that “[a] holder of a license may not fail to take appropriate corrective action to comply with this chapter or rules adopted pursuant to this chapter without valid justification within a reasonable period of time after receiving a written directive from the registrar. The written directive shall set forth the time within which the contractor is to complete the remedial action. The time permitted for compliance shall not be less than fifteen days from the date of issuance of the directive. A license shall not be revoked or suspended nor shall any other penalty be imposed for a violation of this paragraph until after a hearing has been held. The Registrar has the authority to issue license discipline under this provision, including summary suspension, revocation, or imposing a civil penalty or recovery fund award.

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(E) provides, in pertinent parts, that the Registrar may “[i]mpose a civil penalty not to exceed five hundred dollars on a contractor for each violation. The failure by the licensee to pay any civil penalty imposed results in the automatic revocation of the license thirty days after the effective date of the order providing for the civil penalty.” It also provides that “[n]o future license may be issued to an entity consisting of a person who is associated with the contractor, unless payment of any outstanding civil penalty is tendered.”

Statutes shall be liberally construed to affect their objects and to promote justice. In interpreting a statute, “[w]e first consider the language of the statute and, if it is unclear, turn to other factors, including ‘the statute’s context, subject matter, historical background, effects, consequences, spirit, and purpose.”

Statutes should be interpreted to provide a fair and sensible result. “In applying a statute its words are to be given their ordinary meaning unless the legislature has offered its own definition of the words or it appears from the context that a special meaning was intended.”

The Tribunal is required to apply equitable principles when rendering decisions. The application of equity entails offering a remedy to avoid an unconscionable or unjust result.

The substantive facts of record in this matter are not in dispute.

It is undisputed that the parties had a residential well installation contract, which Complainant substantially paid Respondent for, and that Respondent did not perform any work under the terms of the parties’ agreement. It is also undisputed that Respondent did not attempt comply with the Registrar’s Directive, or request an extension thereof. The record also reflects that Respondent never provided the Registrar with an updated construction contract template to establish its compliance with Ariz. Rev. Stat. §§ 32-1154(A)(12); 32-1158. It is further undisputed that Respondent did not tender a refund or otherwise enter into a settlement agreement with Complainant by June 06, 2025.

Therefore, the only remaining issue to address is whether Respondent raised sufficient justification or excuse for failing to take any material action to satisfy the Registrar’s Directive prior to the expiration of the corrective order’s compliance period. These are an affirmative defenses that Respondent bears the burden to establish. The Tribunal is not at liberty to make presumptions in favor of Respondent or accept facts in mitigation on behalf of Respondent that are not supported by the evidence. Here, the record reflects that Respondent failed to act in any degree and had no affirmative defense(s) for doing so. Notably, Respondent’s absence from this administrative proceeding is also a factor in aggravation, as it evinces the licensee’s unwillingness to be regulated by the Registrar.

Because Complainant has established Respondent’s statutory violation(s) of Ariz. Rev. Stat. §§ 32-1154(A)(1), 32-1154(A)(3); Ariz. Admin. Code R4-9-108(b), and 32-1154(A)(22) by a preponderance of the evidence, Complainant has also established cause for the Registrar to discipline ROC License No. 333893.

Complainant may petition the Registrar’s Recovery Fund for financial recompense in this matter.

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Based on the foregoing conduct,

IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that five (5) days after the effective date of the Final Order in this matter Respondent Macy's Well and Pump LLC, ROC License No. 333893, be revoked.

NOTICE

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, August 22, 2025.

Office of Administrative Hearings

/s/ Jenna Clark

Administrative Law Judge

Transmitted electronically to:

Tom Cole, Director

c/o Legal Department

Registrar of Contractors

1700 W. Washington St., Ste. 105

Phoenix, AZ 85007

[email redacted]

Janett Ruiz, Complainant

c/o David Ruiz, Representative

7620 E. Juanita Ave.

Mesa, AZ 85209

[email redacted]

Macy's Well and Pump LLC, Respondent

24390 E. Peace Ln.

Florence, AZ 85132

[email redacted]

By: OAH Staff