ALJDEC - Licensing

2025A-04564-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2025-10-24

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

Simon Edison

COMPLAINANT,

v.

Air Pro Heating & Cooling LLC,

License No. ROC 341591,

RESPONDENT.

No. 2025A-04564-CHC-ROC

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION

HEARING: September 19, 2025 with the record held open until October 17, 2025 to afford the parties additional time to resolve their dispute.

APPEARANCES: Simon Edison (hereinafter “Complainant”) appeared on behalf of himself. Eduardo Marquez appeared on behalf of Air Pro Heating & Cooling LLC (hereinafter “Respondent”).

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Velva Moses-Thompson

_____________________________________________________________________

FINDINGS OF FACT

Respondent holds License No. ROC 341591 issued by the Arizona

Registrar of Contractors (hereinafter “Registrar”).

2. Eduardo Marquez is Respondent’s qualifying party.

3. Complainant owns a home that is located at 4911 W. Range Mule DR, Phoenix, AZ 85083.

4. Complainant’s mother, Judith Davis Jones, resides in Complainant’s home.

5. On or about February 15, 2025, Respondent agreed to install two air conditioning units in Complainant’s home for the amount of $12,340.00.

6. Ms. Jones paid Respondent half of the contract amount with a credit card and the remaining half with a check.

7. However, Respondent did not install the air conditioning units.

8. On or about May 6, 2025, the Registrar received a complaint from

Complainant alleging abandonment on the part of Respondent.

9. The Registrar assigned the complaint to one of its investigators, Charles Riddlehoover (hereinafter “Investigator Riddlehoover”).

10. On June 3, 2025, Investigator Riddlehoover conducted a job-site inspection.

11. On June 4, 2025, the Registrar issued a Directive against Respondent’s license. The June 4, 2025 Directive provided, in relevant 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 6/20/2025.

RESTRICTIONS

• You may not perform or hire other contractors to perform work that is outside

the scope of your license.

• If your license is currently suspended for administrative reasons1, or is inactive,

expired, or cancelled, you may not perform any corrective work nor contract in

any manner, which includes hiring other contractors to perform work, until the

suspension of your license(s) has been lifted or your license(s) has been

reactivated.

DIRECTIVE REQUIREMENTS

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

Complaint Item: 1 - Air Pro Heating & Cooling LLC did not show up with

product or do any work

Investigator’s Observation: During our investigation it appeared the

respondent had not installed equipment listed within the contract. No evidence

of refund has been submitted. The Respondent will need to correct this by the

appropriate means.

Governing Rule: Violation of any rule adopted by the Registrar; Namely

A.A.C. R4-9-108(a): A contractor shall perform all work in a professional and

workmanlike manner. A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) - R4-9-108(A) Workmanship

.............................................

12. Respondent did not comply with the Directive.

13. On June 24, 2025, the Registrar issued a Citation that contained allegations that Respondent may have violated Ariz. Rev. Stat. section 32-1154(A)(1) and (22). The Citation shows that if the Administrative Law Judge finds that any of the alleged charges are valid, the Registrar may suspend or revoke Respondent’s license.

14. Respondent filed a timely appeal to the Citation.

15. The matter was referred to the Office of Administrative Hearings for an

evidentiary hearing.

16. At hearing, Complainant testified on behalf of himself and presented the testimony of Ms. Jones. Mr. Marquez testified on behalf of Respondent. Investigator Riddlehoover testified regarding his investigation of the complaint.

17. Complainant and Ms. Jones explained that Respondent did not install the air conditioning units. Ms. Jones disputed the $6,170 credit card payment with her credit card issuance and received a credit. However, Ms. Jones stated that she waited a long amount of time before receiving the credit.

18. Mr. Marquez stated that Respondent’s dispatcher, “Martin” agreed to install the air conditioning units. Mr. Marquez stated that Martin was not a technician which caused confusion. Mr. Marquez stated that Marin no longer works for Respondent. Mr. Marquez stated that Ms. Jones should be reimbursed the $6,170 that she paid to Respondent. Mr. Marquez told Complainant and the tribunal that he would reimburse Ms. Jones $6,170 in three weeks. The Administrative Law Judge held the record open until October 17, 2025 to allow the payment to process. However, Complainant notified the tribunal on October 15, 2025 that Respondent had not issued a reimbursement.

19. Administrative notice is taken of Respondent’s disciplinary history as shown on the Registrar’s public website on October 24, 2025. Respondent’s license record shows that its license was issued on November 4, 2022 and is revoked.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

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

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. See A.A.C. R2-19-119.

3. The Administrative Law Judge may consider the Registrar’s administrative record. See Ariz. Admin. Code § R4-9-118.

4. 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).

5. The preponderance of the evidence shows that Respondent abandoned

the contract by failing failed to install the air conditioning units, which is a violation of violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. section 32-1154(A)(1).

6. The preponderance of the evidence shows that Respondent failed to

correct the items listed in the Registrar’s Directive without valid justification, which is a violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. section 32-1154(A)(22).

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Based on the foregoing, it is recommended that on the effective date of the Order, the Registrar shall revoke License No. ROC 341591 held by Air Pro Heating & Cooling LLC.

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 24, 2025.

/s/ Velva Moses-Thompson

Administrative Law Judge

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

Tom Cole, Director

Registrar of Contractors

Simon Edison

[email redacted]

Air Pro Heating & Cooling LLC

[email redacted]

By: OAH Staff