ALJDEC - Licensing
2025A-04112-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2025-11-28
IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
Noe Valenzuela Noriega,
COMPLAINANT
v.
Meno General Contractor LLC,
License No. ROC 209410,
RESPONDENT
No. 2025A-04112-CHC-ROC
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION
HEARING: October 31, 2025
APPEARANCES:
Complainant: Noe Valenzuela Noriega
Respondent: Jose Manuel Castro
Registrar of Contractors: Ruben Perez, Investigator
Interpreter: Mark Cañas
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Nedra-Su Kawasaki
EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: Administrative notice was taken of the Notice of Hearing Packet submitted by the Registrar of Contractors.
_____________________________________________________________________
FINDINGS OF FACT
Meno General Contractor (Respondent) was the holder of License No. 209410 issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (Registrar) on July 12, 2005.
On or about May 15, 2024, Noe Valenzuela (Complainant) entered into a contract with Respondent for, among other things, a new home purchase.
On or about May 13, 2025, Complainant filed a Licensed Complaint Form with the Registrar, claiming poor work.
The Registrar assigned the complaint to Investigator Ruben Perez, who issued a Jobsite Inspection Notice on May 14, 2025, scheduling the inspection for May 28, 2025.
Investigator Perez conducted the jobsite inspection on May 28, 2025, and Respondent was present. Following the inspection, Investigator Perez issued a Written Directive From the Registrar to Respondent on June 6, 2025 that provided as follows:
You are directed to remedy the following violations by the appropriate means:
Complaint Item 1: The floor is uneven.
Investigator’s Observation: Tile floor in dining room, living room, hallway, master bathroom and in master bathroom shower was observed with lippage exceeding 1/16” tolerance. Master bathroom shower tile floor was observed with irregular grout size (from 1/16” up to 5/16”). Respondent to correct by appropriate means.
Complaint Item 3: Both bathroom tiles are coming apart.
Investigator’s Observation: Hallway bathroom shower was observed with cracked grout at corner. Master bathroom shower was observed with missing grout at corner. Respondent to correct by appropriate means.
Complaint Item 4: The kitchen wall is cracked.
Investigator’s Observation: Wall below kitchen window was observed with a crack at corner. Respondent to correct by appropriate means. “Contractor should repair nail pops, seam lines and other hairline cracks one time within first year of occupancy.” After one repair, this becomes owner’s maintenance.
Complaint Item 5: The air conditioning does not cool the rooms
Investigator’s Observation: Exterior temperature was 89 degrees and AC was set to 78 degrees. Master bedroom and Southeast bedroom were observed to not cool adequately. Respondent to correct by appropriate means. “Unit should cool structure 30 degrees lower than outside air temperature when measured in center of room at 5’ height. Minimum indoor temperature should be 78 degrees.”
Complaint Item 6: The back door is not sealed correctly.
Investigator’s Observation: Back French door was observed not properly sealed at bottom right corner (while inside). Respondent to correct by appropriate means. “Contractor should adjust or correct the weather stripping or threshold one time during the first year of occupancy.”
Complaint Item 7: The door views are not installed correctly.
Investigator’s Observation: Wall inside master bathroom water closet was observed missing a small piece of baseboard. Respondent to correct by appropriate means.
The Written Directive required Respondent to notify Investigator Perez of Respondent’s compliance with the directive prior to 5:00 p.m. on June 25, 2025.
Investigator Perez testified that the Written Directive compliance deadline was extended to July 3, 2025.
On July 3, 2025, Investigator Perez issued a Compliance Inspection Notice, setting the inspection for July 7, 2025. During the inspection, Compliance Item 1 was deemed not completed.
On July 10, 2025, the Registrar issued a Citation against Respondent, finding cause to charge Respondent with violations of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(A), and A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22).
Respondent submitted an Answer to the Citation on July 15, 2025. Respondent’s Answer asserted:
Regarding Complaint Item 1, we respectfully request clarification. The inspector noted damaged wall tiles in the master bathroom shower during the compliance inspection. However, the original written directive only referenced the shower floor tile and its grout inconsistencies — there was no mention of the wall tiles. Therefore, this condition was not addressed because it was not included in the scope of the directive. We ask that the wall tile observation be treated as a new finding, and not as a failure to comply with the original directive. We are willing to address this new concern promptly. Additionally, the floor tile work that was completed was based on the areas specifically identified by the complainant to be repaired. In hindsight, it was my mistake not to inspect the surrounding areas more thoroughly to identify additional issues that may have existed. The compliance report noted that excessive lippage remains in the kitchen, living room, and master bedroom areas. We understand this is still a concern and want to make clear that we are fully willing to take corrective action as needed to bring those areas into compliance as well.
The Registrar referred the matter to the Office of Administrative Hearings, an independent state agency, for an evidentiary hearing.
On July 29, 2025, the Registrar issued a Notice of Hearing on Contested Case setting the hearing for September 10, 2025.
On the same date, Investigator Perez advised he would be unavailable to testify at the hearing on September 10, 2025, due to training and requested the hearing be continued.
On July 31, 2025, the Administrative Law Judge granted the continuance, setting the hearing to convene on September 22, 2025.
A prehearing inspection was scheduled for September 19, 2025. On September 15, 2025, Complainant advised Investigator Perez he would be out-of-town that week and unavailable for the scheduled prehearing inspection; however, he further advised no work had been completed.
On September 22, 2025, all parties appeared at the scheduled time for hearing. However, a language barrier was experienced and the hearing was recessed pending scheduling an interpreter.
On October 12, 2025, the parties were notified the hearing was set to re-convene on October 31, 2025. The order granting the continuance from the Office of Administrative Hearings advised the parties how to connect to the hearing via Google Meet.
The hearing was held, with an interpreter present, via Google Meet on October 31, 2025.
Investigator Perez testified in support of his jobsite inspection findings, the written directive, compliance inspection findings, and the Citation. Specifically, Investigator Perez addressed issue with the master bathroom shower wall tiles. He noted that, while the shower floor tiles had been corrected per the directive, in the process of correction, shower wall tiles were damaged and not fixed. On questioning, Investigator Perez testified that some of the floor tiles (throughout the house) were replaced correcting the excessive lippage at issue in the Written Directive; however, at the compliance inspection there were still tiles remaining with excessive lippage.
Complainant testified in agreement with the admitted record and Investigator Perez’s testimony. Complainant further noted there was a potential communication issue because, during the compliance period all communication, was going through Complainant’s now ex-wife. However, Complainant stated his contact information was on all paperwork with Respondent and Complainant also had Respondent’s contact information.
Respondent testified that Complainant had marked the areas of the floor that needed to be corrected, but Respondent missed some of them because they were under furniture which Respondent did not move. Respondent also testified in agreement with Complainant that Complainant’s now ex-wife was the main point of contact during the compliance period.
Administrative notice was taken of Respondent’s prior License record on October 31, 2025. According to that record, Respondent’s License No. 209410 was Active; and there was one open complaint (instant matter), no disciplined cases, and no resolved/settled complaints 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. Respondent bears the burden of proof to establish an affirmative defense 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 correcting work pursuant to a Written Directive from the Registrar, a contractor cannot damage property or create additional workmanship issues. Any damage or new deficiencies in workmanship must be fixed before the directive period ends. Attempting corrective work on a Directive item incurs a responsibility to perform that corrective work competently and in compliance with applicable standards. A new complaint and Directive are not required to hold a respondent responsible for its workmanship deficiencies when attempting such repairs. When a licensed contractor attempts repairs pursuant to a Directive from the Registrar, the respondent accepts responsibility for conducting repairs appropriately even if it would not have been responsible but for the attempted repairs.
The preponderance of the evidence established that Respondent failed to perform all work in a professional and workmanlike manner in violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(A), specifically regarding Compliance Item 1. Tile floors throughout the home had excessive lippage.
The preponderance of the evidence 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). At the time of the Compliance inspection, although corrective action had been taken, excessive floor tile lippage remained in various areas throughout the home. Additionally, in correcting the master shower floor tile issue, Respondent damaged the shower wall tiles. This damage was not corrected prior to the end of the compliance directive period.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Based on the foregoing, it is recommended that on the effective date of the Order, the Registrar shall suspend for one business day Respondent’s License No. 209410.
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 28, 2025.
/s/ Nedra-Su Kawasaki
Administrative Law Judge
Transmitted by either mail, e-mail, or facsimile to:
Tom Cole, Director
Registrar of Contractors
Meno General Contractor LLC
[email redacted]
Ruben Perez Sr.
Registrar of Contractors
[email redacted]
Noe Valenzuela Noriega
[email redacted]
By: OAH Staff