ALJDEC - Licensing
2025A-04185-NPC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2025-08-18
IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
Happy Valley Plumbing LLC,
COMPLAINANT,
v.
Mark Benz Custom Building and Remodeling LLC
License No. ROC 296616,
RESPONDENT.
No. 2025A-04185-NPC-ROC
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION
HEARING: July 28, 2025 at 9:00am
APPEARANCES: Jason Sutton on behalf of Complainant Happy Valley Plumbing LLC. Mark Benz on behalf of Respondent Mark Benz Custom Building & Remodeling LLC.
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Nicole Robinson
EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: Arizona Registrar of Contractors Notice of Hearing Packet (“Packet”). Respondent Exhibits.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Mark Benz Custom Building & Remodeling, LLC (“Respondent”) is the holder of License No. ROC 296616 issued by the Registrar of Contractors (“Registrar”).
On or about April 26, 2025, Happy Valley Plumbing, LLC (“Complainant”) filed a Complaint against Respondent with the Registrar alleging that Respondent had failed to pay Complainant the sum of $23,589.00 for plumbing work performed at residential home projects.
The parties were unable to resolve their differences, and Complainant requested an administrative hearing. On May 23, 2025, the Registrar then issued a Citation for Alleged Violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(10).
Respondent did not assert that it lacked the capacity to pay the amount Complainant asserted was due.
Hearing Evidence
Jason Sutton, owner of Complainant business, testified on his own behalf. Respondent presented the testimony of Mark Benz, owner of Respondent company. Administrative notice was taken of the Registrar’s packet which includes the Notice of Hearing. The substantive evidence of record was as follows:
Complainant has been working with Respondent over the last two years. Over that two year period, Complainant contracted with Respondent for approximately 15 residential plumbing jobs.
Respondent was a luxury, residential general contracting company that has been in business for 12 years and had about 27 employees.
Mr. Sutton handled all the invoices for Complainant. Mr. Sutton created the invoices and sent them by email to Respondent, per his regular business routine.
Mr. Sutton was not paid on multiple invoices over three projects which included the Short, Kunz and Hilliker properties. The breakdowns are set forth:
Invoice Date
Invoice Number
Amount
Amount Paid
SHORT PROJECT
April 4, 2025
0003383
$625.00
$0
KUNZ PROJECT
April 26, 2025
0003400
$8,130.00
$0
February 26, 2025
0003364
$4,452.50
$0
March 4, 2025
0003370
$6,282.00
$0
HILLIKER PROJECT
November 21, 2024
0003327
$835.00
$0
April 26, 2025
0003396
$307.50
$0
August 26, 2024
0003397
$480.00
$0
April 26, 2025
0003398
$295.00
$0
April 25, 2025
0003395
$3,007.50
$0
April 26, 2025
0003399
$3,007.50
$0
TOTAL AMOUNT
$27,422.00
Mr. Sutton testified that Respondent threatened him with a job abandonment complaint with the Registrar if he did not complete particular projects. Mr. Sutton dealt with numerous change orders on these projects and was not paid for some of his work. Complainant was a small business and Mr. Sutton had never been through the Registrar process before.
Mr. Sutton testified that Respondent was “let go” from the Kunz project prior to its completion. Mr. Sutton spoke to Mr. Benz about being paid for the work performed on the Kunz project. Due to not receiving a clear response, Mr. Sutton filed the Registrar complaint. After the Registrar complaint was filed, Mr. Benz terminated Complainant from approximately four, additional outstanding projects.
Respondent’s accounting detailed that $23,589.00 was owed to Complainant. Respondent disputed $2,643.00. As such, Respondent believed that for the Short, Kunz, and Hilliker projects, Complainant was owed $20,946.00. However, Mr. Benz argued that the $20,946.00 should be offset by poor work on other jobs that were partially performed by Complainant.
Mr. Benz provided that there were three other projects (Kelly, Olson and Quirk) that Complainant did not complete and are owed money on. These projects are detailed as follows:
Kelly Project: Failed rough-in inspection, pipes go above the slab and in July 2025, Respondent had to bring in different sub-contractors to fix the work.
Olson Project: City did not approve due to the wrong diameter piping installed.
Quirk Project: The underground had to be ripped out four times due to poor workmanship.
Mr. Benz asserted that due to the Kelly, Olson, and Quirk projects that Respondent only owed Complainant about $11,000.00 which would offset its poor workmanship.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The burden of proof at an administrative hearing falls to the party asserting a claim, right, or entitlement and the standard of proof on all issues in these matters is 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.”
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(10) includes among the grounds for suspension, revocation, or other disciplinary action against a contractor’s license,
[f]ailure by a licensee or agent or official of a licensee to pay monies in excess of $750 when due for materials or services rendered in connection with the licensee's operations as a contractor unless the licensee proves that the licensee lacks the capacity to pay and has not received sufficient monies as payment for the particular construction work project or operation for which the services or materials were rendered or purchased.
The purpose of the Registrar’s licensing statutes is to protect the public from unscrupulous, unqualified, and financially irresponsible contractors.
The preponderance of the evidence shows that Respondent owed Complainant more than $750.00 for materials/services provided in connection with Respondent’s operations as a contractor.
It was clear from the evidence and testimony provided that Complainant was owed money for services provided. Respondent agreed that money was owed to Complainant regarding the Short, Kunz and Hilliker projects.
In this case, there were discrepancies in the amounts owed to Complainant. The total amount from the invoices was $27,422.00 versus the amount in Complainant’s complaint which was $23,589.00. In Respondent’s accounting it detailed also $23,589.00, although Respondent disputed $2,643.00. As such, Respondent believed for the Short, Kunz, and Hilliker projects, Complainant was owed $20,946.00.
The evidence established that Respondent owed a total of $20,946.00 for plumbing work performed over the three projects.
Respondent failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that it lacked the ability to pay Complainant for the work performed. This Administrative Law Judge is not able to address Respondent’s workmanship complaint (or offset) argument because there was no investigation into these alleged matters. Respondent could look into filing his own complaint with the Registrar to look into those alleged issues against Complainant. However, those issues are not ripe for this Tribunal to address.
Therefore, Complainant established that Respondent violated Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(10) by failing to pay Complainant $20,946.00 for services or materials rendered in connection with Respondent’s contracting business.
Hence, Respondent’s license should be suspended until it pays to Complainant $20,946.00. Based upon Respondent’s violation of the provisions of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(10), grounds exist to impose discipline against Respondent’s license.
RECOMMENDed order
Based on the foregoing,
It is recommended that the Registrar suspend Respondent’s License No. ROC 296616 issued by the Registrar until it has provided to the Registrar, and the Registrar has accepted, documents that establish that it has paid Complainant $20,946.00 in certified funds.
It is further recommended that when and if the Registrar receives and accepts Respondent’s evidence that it has paid Complainant $20,946.00 in certified funds, the Registrar may close the Complaint in Case No. 2025A-04185.
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 18, 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]
Happy Valley Plumbing LLC
0 W. Happy Valley Rd Ste. 141-216
Glendale, AZ 85310
[email redacted]
Mark Benz Custom Building and Remodeling LLC
14231 N 7th St Ste. 2A
Phoenix, AZ 85022
[email redacted]
By: OAH Staff