ALJDEC - Licensing
2025A-04263-NPC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2025-12-02
IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
Trench-Ade LLC,
COMPLAINANT,
v.
Navapache Equipment Services LLC,
License No. ROC 218285,
RESPONDENT.
No. 2025A-04263-NPC-ROC
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION
HEARING: November 12, 2025
APPEARANCES: Tiffany Rizzo appeared on behalf of Trench-Ade LLC (Complainant). No one appeared on behalf of Navapanche Equipment Services, LLC (Respondent).
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Velva Moses-Thompson
EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: Exhibit A: The hearing packet from the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (Registrar). Registrar’s hearing packet: 74 pages.
_____________________________________________________________________
FINDINGS OF FACT
On June 20, 2025, the Registrar issued a Notice of Hearing setting the above-captioned matter for hearing at 9:00 a.m. on July 29, 2025, at the Office of Administrative Hearings in Phoenix, Arizona.
The hearing was continued to November 12, 2025 at 10:30 a.m.
The notice of continued hearing was issued to all parties at their e-mail addresses of record.
No one appeared on behalf of Respondent at the hearing at the scheduled time and the matter was convened in its absence at 10:45 a.m.
Respondent holds license number 218285 issued by the Registrar.
Tiffany Rizzo is Complainant’s credit manager and an employee of Complainant.
Respondent ordered shoring equipment from Complainant.
Complainant supplied and delivered the equipment to Respondent.
Complainant issued invoices to Respondent for payment for the equipment. However, Respondent did not pay Complainant.
On or about April 23, 2025, the Registrar received a complaint from Complainant alleging that Respondent failed to pay for equipment supplied by Complainant.
On or about May 23, 2025, the Registrar issued a Citation alleging that Respondent may have violated Ariz. Rev. Stat. section 32-1154(A)(10).
Respondent filed a timely answer to the Citation. In its answer, Respondent explained that it would pay Complainant after it received payment for the project.
The matter was referred to the Office of Administrative Hearing for an evidentiary hearing.
A hearing was held on November 12, 2025.
Ms. Rizzo and Michael Bear, Complainant’s President, testified on behalf of Complainant.
Ms. Rizzo stated that since the complaint was filed, Complainant received a $1,000.00 payment from Respondent for the shoring equipment that it supplied and delivered to Respondent.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
A party asserting a claim, right, or entitlement bears the burden of proof; a party asserting an affirmative defense has the burden of establishing the affirmative defense. The standard of proof on all issues in this matter is that of a preponderance of the evidence. Ariz. Admin. Code section R2-19-119.
“At a hearing on an agency action to suspend, revoke, terminate or modify on its own initiative material conditions of a license or permit, the agency has the burden of persuasion.” Ariz. Rev. Stat. section 41-1092.07(G)(2).
A preponderance of the evidence is:
The 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.
Black’s Law Dictionary 1373 (10th ed. 2014).
Statutes should be interpreted to provide a fair and sensible result. Gutierrez v. Industrial Commission of Arizona, 226 Ariz. 395, 249 P.3d 1095 (2011)(citation omitted); State v. McFall, 103 Ariz. 234, 238, 439 P.2d 805, 809 (1968) ("Courts will not place an absurd and unreasonable construction on statutes.").
“Statutes shall be liberally construed to effect their objects and to promote justice.” Ariz. Rev. Stat. section 1-211(B).
The purpose of the Registrar’s licensing statutes is to protect the public from unscrupulous, unqualified, and financially irresponsible contractors. See Aesthetic Property Maintenance v. Capital Indem. Corp., 183 Ariz. 74, 900 P. 2d 1210 (1995).
Ariz. Rev. Stat section 32-1154(A) provides that:
The holder of a license or any person listed on a license pursuant to this chapter shall not commit any of the following acts or omissions: .... 10. Failure by a licensee or agent or official of a licensee to pay monies in excess of seven hundred fifty dollars when due for materials or services rendered in connection with the licensee's operations as a contractor when the licensee has the capacity to pay or, if the licensee lacks the capacity to pay, when the licensee has received sufficient monies as payment for the particular construction work project or operation for which the services or materials were rendered or purchased.
8. Ariz. Rev. Stat section 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 . . . to pay monies in excess of seven hundred fifty dollars when due for materials or services rendered in connection with the licensee’s operations as a contractor when the licensee has the capacity to pay or, if the licensee lacks the capacity to pay, when the licensee has received sufficient monies as payment for the particular construction work project or operation for which the services or materials were rendered or purchased.”
9. Payment for “[s]ervices rendered in connection with the licensee’s operations as a contractor” does not include interest, finance charges, lien charges, or other charges that are based solely on contract terms.
10. The preponderance of the evidence shows that Respondent violated Ariz. Rev. Stat section 32-1154(A)(10) as alleged.
ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that on the effective date of the final Order in this matter, Navapache Equipment Services LLC’s ROC License number 218285 is suspended unless the Registrar receives and accepts written verification that Respondent has paid to Complainant $46,359.62 in certified funds.
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, December 2, 2025.
/s/ Velva Moses-Thompson
Administrative Law Judge
Transmitted by either mail, e-mail, or facsimile to:
Tom Cole, Director
Registrar of Contractors
Navapache Equipment Services LLC
[email redacted]
Trench-Ade LLC
[email redacted]
By: OAH Staff