ALJDEC - Licensing
2025A-04606-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2025-11-04
IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
Gregory Muscarella,
COMPLAINANT
v.
Lynx Air Service LLC,
License No. ROC 336547,
RESPONDENT
No. 2025A-04606-CHC-ROC
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION
HEARING: September 26, 2025
APPEARANCES:
COMPLAINANT: Gregory Muscarella
Mark McClure, witness
Amy McClure, witness
RESPONDENT: Jeremy Dominguez
REGISTRAR OF CONTRACTORS: John Peru, Investigator
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.
Complainant Exhibits A-I.
Respondent Exhibits 1-20.
_____________________________________________________________________
FINDINGS OF FACT
Lynx Air Service, LLC (Respondent) was the holder of License No. 336547 issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (Registrar) on February 7, 2022.
On or about July 30, 2024, Gregory Muscarella (Complainant) entered into a contract with Respondent for, among other things, installation of a split heat pump.
On or about May 8, 2025, Complainant filed a Licensed Complaint Form with the Registrar, claiming poor work.
The Registrar assigned the complaint to Investigator John Peru, who issued a Jobsite Inspection Notice on May 20, 2025, scheduling the inspection for June 5, 2025.
Immediately after receiving notification of the complaint, Respondent requested access to the property to inspect the system. Complainant denied access until the scheduled jobsite inspection at which time Complainant also denied access to Respondent’s primary technician.
Based on new evidence presented, an additional Jobsite Inspection Notice was sent on June 16, 2025, scheduling another inspection for June 25, 2025.
Investigator Peru conducted the jobsite inspections as scheduled, and Respondent was present. Following the inspection, Investigator Peru issued a Written Directive From the Registrar to Respondent on July 1, 2025, that provided as follows:
You are directed to remedy the following violations by the appropriate means:
Complaint Item: 1 - Wrong compressor installed and is failing, nuts and bolts not installed, A/C not working in 2 stages, 1 stage only.
Investigator’s Observation: Verified. At the time of this inspection, I observed the compressor to be installed /secured incorrectly.
Complaint Item: 2 - HVAC System oversized.
Investigator’s Observation: Verified. At the time of this inspection, the complainant has provided a Manual J Report certified through the ACCA to meet all the requirements of Manual J 8th ED. The Heat Load Calculation Report specifies for a (3.8 ton capacity), whereas, a (5 ton capacity unit) is currently installed. The respondent shall properly design/install the appropriate system in accordance with 2018 IRC Codes (M1401.3 Equipment and appliance sizing).
The Written Directive required Respondent to notify Investigator Peru of Respondent’s compliance with the Written Directive prior to 5:00 p.m. on July 16, 2025.
On July 17, 2025, Investigator Peru issued a Compliance Inspection Notice, setting the inspection for July 22, 2025. On July 18, 2025, the compliance inspection was rescheduled to July 25, 2025. During the inspection, Compliance Item 2 was deemed not completed.
On July 30, 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); A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(B); and A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22).
Respondent submitted an Answer to the Citation on August 11, 2025. Respondent’s Answer asserted that the initial report of an incorrect compressor made by A & M Mechanical, LLC (A & M) was incorrect; Respondent submitted evidence from the manufacturer that it was, in fact, correct. Thus, A & M was collaborating with Complainant and was dishonest. Additionally, there was a claim that a sylinoid was unplugged which was also verified by A & M; however, the unit model installed did not have a sylinoid. This issue was discussed with the Investigator and the claim was thereafter changed to the unit was incorrectly sized. Complainant and Respondent had multiple conversations regarding unit size at the time of installation because the 4-ton units were not the in stock. Ultimately after discussions and relying on a third-party company’s advice, it was decided to install a larger unit, which functioned properly for over a year. Respondent assumed responsibility for providing a replacement. At that time Complainant became aggressive and harassing toward Respondent. Respondent notified the investigator of the conduct, but was advised it was not a ROC concern. Complainant left handwritten trespassing notes for Respondent’s technician and Respondent had to find new staff.
The Registrar referred the matter to the Office of Administrative Hearings, an independent state agency, for an evidentiary hearing.
On August 25, 2025, the Registrar issued a Notice of Hearing on Contested Case setting the hearing for September 26, 2025.
The hearing was held via Google Meet on September 26, 2025.
Investigator Peru testified in support of his jobsite inspection findings, Written Directive, compliance inspection findings, and the Citation. Specifically, Investigator Peru testified that he found no reason to discredit, and therefore relied on, the third-party report provided by A & M. Additionally, Investigator Peru noted words were exchanged between the parties at the compliance inspection, at which time Complainant requested Respondent leave the property, Respondent did, in fact, excuse himself, and police were called. Despite this interruption, Investigator Peru noted that that would have been the time for Respondent to contest any findings and provide evidence in his defense. Investigator Peru acknowledged that Respondent complied with the Written Directive by replacing the unit with the correct size; however, noted there remained small incomplete items related to the installation for which he did not have discretion to allow Respondent any extra time to fully complete. On questioning, Investigator Peru stated that he could not recall all of the correspondence received from Respondent or whether any of that correspondence related to requiring more time to fully comply with the Written Directive, but that the Registrar could not guide contractors on how to complete the process as it would be a conflict of interest.
Complainant called Mark McClure and Amy McClure, representing A & M, as witnesses. Mr. and Mrs. McClure testified in support of the third-party report they completed. Specifically, Mr. and Mrs. McClure testified that they did not know whether the first compressor installed was correct, but that the second compressor installed was correct.
On questioning, Complainant testified that Investigator Peru asked Complainant if he would grant Respondent extra time to complete the Written Directive and Complainant denied the request, stating “you had until 5 p.m. and you did not fill out the correct forms [to request additional time].”
Respondent testified that in the summer of 2024, Respondent and Complainant entered into a contract for Respondent to install a new HVAC system for Complainant. It was determined that the best size for Complainant’s property was a 4-ton system. However, at the time of contract, there was no local availability of a 4-ton system and after communication between the parties, it was decided to install a 5-ton system with variable speed. Sometime after installation, Complainant advised Respondent that the compressor was not working. Respondent determined the initially installed compressor was too small and replaced it with the correct size. Thereafter, approximately eight months after installation, Complainant advised Respondent of problems with the HVAC system. Respondent attempted to correct the issue and after a break-down in communication and working relationship, Complainant filed a complaint with the Registrar.
On receiving the Written Directive, in an attempt to comply, Respondent ordered a 4-ton HVAC system. However, Respondent noted, because it was again the middle of the summer season, an intense period in the HVAC industry and industry backlog due to a change in government regulation, no system was immediately available. The system arrived with two days remaining in the compliance period. Because Complainant had trespassed Respondent’s primary technician who installed the first HVAC system for Complainant, Respondent employed his secondary technician for the corrective installation. During the installation, it was discovered that a wire that ran through the wall and ceiling of Complainant’s home was not functioning and required complete re-wiring. This complication delayed the installation process and prohibited Respondent from finishing the installation by 5 p.m. on the final day of the compliance period.
Respondent testified that Complainant advised Respondent’s crew they had to leave the property promptly at 5 p.m. and the crew complied, despite having a few final steps left to fully complete the installation. Respondent further testified that he notified Investigator Peru via email of the situation, advised that there were a few things left that required more time to complete, but the crew had been told to leave directly at 5 p.m. Respondent testified that he did not receive a response to his email, but eventually had a telephone conversation with Investigator Peru’s supervisor. Respondent stated he asked for time to fully complete the installation, the Registrar asked Complainant if he would allow additional time, and Complainant refused.
Both parties testified that the working relationship was contentious. Both parties agreed that Complainant trespassed Respondent’s primary technician, Complainant would not allow Respondent on his property to inspect the HVAC system until the scheduled jobsite inspection, and police were called to intervene during the compliance inspection. Respondent testified that Complainant’s communication was vulgar, harassing, and attacking Respondent throughout.
Complainant submitted into evidence an email from Complainant to Respondent, dated May 2025, in which Complainant advises Respondent he had filed a complaint with ROC and would file with the Better Business Bureau and Arizona State Attorney General. Complainant also stated “[Respondent’s primary technician] rigged the system” and “will NEVER step foot on my property again.” Further, Complainant stated that he considered Jeremy Dominguez’s comment “about ‘not wanting to swear at you because you are retired military’” to be a threat. Complainant stated that if Respondent had to come on the property, the police would be on stand-by due to the “verbal threat.”
Respondent submitted into evidence multiple email and text message threads in which Respondent attempted to coordinate corrective action or in the alternative to provide a full refund of the contract price should Complainant so choose. To these messages, Complainant’s responses included: “Wait till you hear me talking in Court!” “No problem, everything will become registered mail. You [slur] little [expletive] snowflake,” “Not what my attorney says. You have proven that you don’t know what you are doing. Military boy.” “Things are going to get fun!” Respondent requested Complainant stop using “language” and name calling. Additionally, Respondent emailed both Complainant and Investigator Peru advising that he would not take abuse and threats and asked Investigator Peru to call Respondent, as his previous emails to the investigator remained unanswered and he no longer felt comfortable or safe working with or for Complainant. Complainant responded directly to Respondent, from an email sent from Investigator Peru to both parties, stating “Please note (actually read this time). YOU DO NOT NEED TO BE AT THE INSPECTION – Remember, you don’t feel safe.”
Administrative notice was taken of Respondent’s prior License record on September 26, 2025. According to that record, Respondent’s License No. 336547 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.”
A.R.S. § 32-1155(D) provides, in pertinent part, as follows:
The registrar may not issue a citation for failure to perform work in a professional and workmanlike manner or in accordance with any applicable building codes and professional industry standards if either:
1. The contractor is not provided an opportunity to inspect the work within fifteen days after receiving a written notice from the registrar.
The Registrar of Contractors process should not be used inappropriately, and if a complainant abuses the process, the complaint should be dismissed. However, legitimate disciplinary claims against a contractor’s license are not rendered an abuse of the process by mere expressions of anger or discontentment.
Respondent was advised of the complaint in this matter by a written notice dated May 20, 2025. Respondent immediately requested access to the property to inspect the system and was denied that access. Fifteen days from May 20, 2025, was June 4, 2025. Complainant denied Respondent access even though the jobsite inspection was not scheduled to be held until June 5, 2025, more than fifteen days after Respondent was notified of the complaint.
Because Respondent was not provided an opportunity to inspect the work within fifteen days after receiving the written notice of the complaint from the Registrar, the Registrar was not authorized to issue the Citation in this matter.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Based on the foregoing, it is recommended that on the effective date of the Order, the Registrar shall dismiss the complaint in this matter in its entirety.
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 4, 2025.
/s/ Nedra-Su Kawasaki
Administrative Law Judge
Transmitted by either mail, e-mail, or facsimile to:
Tom Cole, Director
Registrar of Contractors
Lynx Air Service LLC
[email redacted]
Gregory Muscarella
[email redacted]
John Peru
[email redacted]
By: OAH Staff