ALJDEC - Licensing

2025A-04636-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2026-05-19

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

Pamela Lord,

COMPLAINANT

Ninja Builders LLC,

License No. ROC 292996,

RESPONDENT

No. 2025A-04636-CHC-ROC

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION

HEARING: May 4, 2026

APPEARANCES: Complainant Pamela Lord was represented by Dennis A. Rosen, Esq. Respondent Ninja Builders LLC was represented by Adam Weisman, Esq. Registrar of Contractors Investigator Heath Richards appeared via Google Meet.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Adam D. Stone

EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: Complainant’s Exhibits 1-28 were admitted into evidence; Respondent’s Exhibits 1-32 were admitted into evidence.

_____________________________________________________________________

FINDINGS OF FACT

Ninja Builders LLC (Respondent) is the holder of License No. 292996 issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (Registrar).

On or about September 29, 2023, Complainant hired Respondent to construct a new garage at her residence in Marana, Arizona. The total contracted price was $268,368.00.

On or about May 8, 2025, the Registrar received a Complaint against Respondent from Complainant alleging poor work with respect to project.

The Registrar assigned the complaint to Investigator Heath Richards. The jobsite inspection was performed on July 28, 2025.

Investigator Richards then issued a Written Directive on or about August 15, 2025, which provided in pertinent 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 Friday, October 17, 2025.

. . .

DIRECTIVE REQUIREMENTS

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

Complaint Item: 8 – “Concrete floor to poured too high in dog room – told keep low as to not grind”

Investigator’s Observation: Using a level and spacers I determined that the new slab in the dog room is 11/32 of an inch higher than the old slab in the office. Both parties agreed these spaces were meant to share a common floor.

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

Complaint Item: 10 – “Rip rap under gutters not sufficient”

Investigator’s Observation: Complainant pointed to rip rap placed under scuppers. Site plan keynote 19 reads. "Provide rip rap pad and swale over filter fabric at roof drain/scupper locations to control erosion". The intended function of the pad is for water from the scupper land on the rip rap, reducing erosion. The pads size and placement make this unlikely. The Respondent will need to correct this by the appropriate means.

Governing Rule: Departure from or disregard of: (a) Plans or specifications in any material respect that is prejudicial to another without consent of the owner or the owner's duly authorized representative and without the consent of the person entitled to have the particular construction project or operation completed in accordance with such plans and specifications and code.

A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(2)(a)

Complaint Item: 16 – “Pavers uneven and separating and stained” Investigator’s Observation: The Complainant pointed out a path of depressions in the pavers from the utilities to the front of the property. And an area at the front of the property by the drainage ditch where pavers had separated. The path of depressions follows along the excavation for utilities that both parties describe. Using an 8ft level I measured areas leading to the utilities to be 1 and 1/8th of an inch out of flat. Pavers at drainage excavation at front of property had gaps up to 1 and 1/8th of an inch. The Respondent shall correct 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

Complaint Item: 17 – “No gate on HVAC – was told no room” Investigator’s Observation: At time of inspection no gate was installed. Plans detail a gate to be installed at this location. The screen wall that is installed is also not to specifications on the plan. The Respondent shall correct by the appropriate means.

A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(2)(a)

Complaint Item: 27 – “Light through door – still exists”

Investigator’s Observation: Complainant pointed to light coming through in the upper corner of the man door to garage. When the bottom of the doorwas flush to the frame, the top of the door was 1/2 inch out of flush to the frame. The Respondent shall correct 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

Complaint Item: 30 – “Car Lift recess is too shallow - concrete floor wasn’t cut correctly – gave drawings, not flat”

Investigator’s Observation: Car lift recess specifications call for 6 inch depth in plan detail. Both car lift recesses measured 5 1/5 inches deep. Both car lifts are 15/32 higher than the garage floor. The Respondent shall correct by the appropriate means.

A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(2)(a)

Complaint Item: 34 – “Bathroom - Clean out behind sink no access to clean out at junction”

Investigator’s Observation: At the jobsite inspection, the Complainant clarified that he meant the toilet cleanout. The clean out was placed directly behind the toilet and is completely inaccessible. The Respondent shall correct 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

Complaint Item: 36 - Storage/Laundry room - Drywall finish at laundry room

Investigator’s Observation: Respondent pointed to an area in the closet around a 2 gang light switch. The texture had straight lines and the texture around the faceplate was noticeably inconsistent with the rest of the wall, which was also work by the Respondent. The Respondent shall correct 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

Complaint Item: 39 – “No hot water in bathroom and laundry” Investigator’s Observation: Ran hot water in the bathroom sink for several minutes with no temperature change. The Respondent shall correct 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

Complaint Item: 41 – “Dog room - Not completed per spec - no cabinets, no sink, no flooring, no counter, no tile, no shelving, no finishes” Investigator’s Observation: At the time of the jobsite inspection the dog room was bare concrete floor with no baseboard or finishing beyond paint. Respondent provided change orders that detailed

removing the dog room finishing from the scope of work. The change orders were not signed.

Insufficient evidence that these changes were agreed to by the Complainant. The Respondent shall correct by the appropriate means.

A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(2)(a)

Complaint Item: 42 – “Dog room - finish on dryer vent”

Investigator’s Observation: Complainant pointed to and explained that the dry wall finishing around the housing for the dryer vent was their concern.

Both parties agreed that the housing had been installed prior to drywall. Drywall was finished roughly particularly on the top edge where it was visibly cut uneven. The Respondent shall correct 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

Complaint Item: 46 – “Damaged driveway alarm”

Investigator’s Observation: Respondent stated they had attempted to install replacement alarm ordered by home owner. Both parties agreed alarm was not working at time of inspection. 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

. . .

(All errors contained in the original).

A Compliance Jobsite Inspection was completed on November 3, 2025, and Investigator Richards noted the following in pertinent part:

Complaint Item: 8 - Concrete floor to poured too high in dog room – told keep low as to not grind

Investigator’s Initial Observation: Using a level and spacers I determined that the new slab in the dog room is 11/32 of an inch higher than the old slab in the office. Both parties agreed these spaces were meant to share a common floor. The Respondent will need to correct this by the appropriate means.

Respondent’s meeting with A.C. Ellington 9/23/2025: The Respondent stated they were not allowed access to the dog room. Although the Complainant was not given an opportunity to respond to this, it is the Complainant’s responsibility to allow safe access for corrective work to be completed, to include the removal of personal items. To deny access is grounds for complaint dismissal. Both parties will need to work together and schedule this work immediately.

Compliance Observation: At the compliance inspection, the dog room had been cleared of all items. The slab in the dog room had been ground down to level with the pre-existing slab in the house.

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.

☒ CORRECTED ☐ NOT CORRECTED

Complaint Item: 10 - Rip rap under gutters not sufficient

Investigator’s Initial Observation: Complainant pointed to rip rap placed under scuppers.

Site plan keynote 19 reads. "Provide rip rap pad and swale over filter fabric at roofdrain/scupper locations to control erosion". The intended function of the pad is for water from the scupper land on the rip rap, reducing erosion. The pads size and placement make this unlikely. The Respondent will need to correct this by the appropriate means.

Compliance Observation: The riprap pads under both scuppers had been expanded in width and length. The pads are more likely to catch rainwater from the scuppers as intended.

☒ CORRECTED ☐ NOT CORRECTED

Complaint Item: 16 - Pavers uneven and separating and stained

Investigator’s Initial Observation: The Complainant pointed out a path of depressions in the pavers from the utilities to the front of the property. And an area at the front of the property by the drainage ditch where pavers had separated. The path of depressions follows along the excavation for utilities that both parties describe. Using an 8ft level I measured areas leading to the utilities to be 1 and 1/8th of an inch out of flat. Pavers at drainage excavation at front of property had gaps up to 1 and 1/8th of an inch. The Respondent shall correct by the appropriate means.

Compliance Observation: During the compliance inspection, depressions measuring up to 7/8 of an inch out of flat were present in the areas where the Respondent stated corrective work had been performed. Additionally, cut bits of paver were used to fill gaps. The cut bits of paver disrupted the pattern of the paver lay. The registrars Minimum workmanship standards state “Pavers with a gap greater than 3/16” in the field should be taken up and relayed tight.” 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.

☐ CORRECTED ☒ NOT CORRECTED

Complaint Item: 17 - No gate on HVAC – was told no room

Investigator’s Initial Observation: At time of inspection no gate was installed. Plans detail a gate to be installed at this location. The screen wall that is installed is also not to specifications on the plan. The Respondent shall correct by the appropriate means.

Respondent’s meeting with A.C. Ellington 9/23/2025:

The Respondent showed the city approved plan (drawn by Complainant’s architect, and provided by the Complainant) which clearly shows inadequate space to install a gate. Many construction projects are challenged with the reality that an architect’s drawings are not feasible and must be modified by a change order. The Complainant and Respondent will need to discuss the options and agree on an appropriate change order, or the complainant can accept the existing screen wall. Once a decision is made, the Respondent will correct accordingly.

Compliance Observation: During the compliance jobsite inspection, both parties explained that they are at an impasse regarding resolution of this item. The physical limitations of the space are not accurately depicted in the architect's drawing. Therefore, This is a dispute between the parties, and the registrar will not issue a citation in this matter.

☐ CORRECTED ☐ NOT CORRECTED ☒ N/A

Complaint Item: 27 - Light through door – still exists

Investigator’s Initial Observation: Complainant pointed to light coming through in the upper corner of the man door to garage. When the bottom of the door was flush to the frame, the top of the door was 1/2 inch out of flush to the frame. The Respondent shall correct by the appropriate means.

Compliance Observation: During the compliance jobsite inspection, the Complainant stated that this work was completed.

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.

☒ CORRECTED ☐ NOT CORRECTED

Complaint Item: 30 - Car Lift recess is too shallow - concrete floor wasn’t cut correctly – gave drawings, not flat

Investigator’s Initial Observation: Car lift recess specifications call for 6 inch depth in plan detail. Both car lift recesses measured 5 1/2 inches deep. Both car lifts are 15/32 higher than the garage floor. The Respondent shall correct by the appropriate means.

Respondent’s meeting with A.C. Ellington 9/23/2025:

The investigator’s initial measurement of 5 1/5” was a typo and should have been documented at 5 1⁄2”. The Respondent will assure that the car lift recess is as per plan at 6” of depth in all locations. The height of the lift is not the Respondent’s concern as the project was bid on the depth of the recess. The Respondent will either correct the recess to the required depth, or demonstrate to the investigator that the correct depth has already been achieved.

Compliance Observation: During the compliance jobsite inspection, the Complainant explained that the lifts had not been removed from the recesses during the written directive. The Respondent could not perform corrective work without these lifts being removed.

☐ CORRECTED ☐ NOT CORRECTED ☒ N/A

Complaint Item: 36 - Storage/Laundry room - Drywall finish at laundry room Investigator’s Initial Observation: Respondent pointed to an area in the closet around a 2 gang light switch. The texture had straight lines and the texture around the faceplate was noticeably inconsistent with the rest of the wall, which was also work by the Respondent. The Respondent shall correct by the appropriate means.

Compliance Observation: During the compliance jobsite inspection, the Complainant stated that this work was completed.

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.

☒ CORRECTED ☐ NOT CORRECTED

Complaint Item: 39 - No hot water in bathroom and laundry

Investigator’s Initial Observation: Ran hot water in the bathroom sink for several minutes with no temperature change. The Respondent shall correct by the appropriate means.

Compliance Observation: During the compliance jobsite inspection, when the ball valve on the hot water outlet side of the nearby water heater was in the ‘on’ position, the bathroom sink had hot water; however, the water on one side of the home became lukewarm. When the same valve was turned to the off position, the bathroom sink did not have hot water, and the rest of the home had hot water.

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.

☐ CORRECTED ☒ NOT CORRECTED

Complaint Item: 42 - Dog room - finish on dryer vent

Investigator’s Initial Observation: Complainant pointed to and explained that the dry wall finishing around the housing for the dryer vent was their concern. Both parties agreed that the housing had been installed prior to drywall. Drywall was finished roughly particularly on the top edge where it was visibly cut uneven. The Respondent shall correct by the appropriate means.

Compliance Observation: During the compliance jobsite inspection, the Investigator inspected the drywall finish around the dryer vent. The edge was cut uniformly and the texture was acceptably varied from its surroundings.

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.

☒ CORRECTED ☐ NOT CORRECTED

. . .

On November 7, 2025, the Registrar issued a Citation against Respondent, charging possible violations of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) – R4-9-108(A), and A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22).

On or about November 14, 2025, Respondent submitted an Answer to the Registrar.

On or about January 12, 2026, a Notice of Hearing was issued setting a hearing on February 24, 2026, at the Office of Administrative Hearings, an independent state agency.

After a continuance, hearing was held on May 4, 2026.

At hearing, Investigator Richards testified as to the Registrar’s involvement and the above timeline and findings. He testified that there were only two items which remained uncorrected, namely items 16 and 39.

As to item 16, the pavers, Investigator Richards testified that while the gaps improved to 7/8 of an inch out of flat from 1 and 1/18 of an inch, it was still out of the 3/16 of an inch tolerance.

Investigator Richards testified further that as to item 39, the hot water issue likewise was not corrected as when the ball valve on the outside outlet was in the “on” position, the bathroom had hot water, but the rest of the house only had lukewarm water.

Complainant testified that as to the hot water issue, the subcontractor came out many times in inspect the same, however did not resolve the issue. It was not until she hired a different contractor who noticed that during the installation, the lines somehow got crossed from the recirculating pump.

As to the pavers, Complainant testified that the pavers should have been in a pattern and that the driveway had no drainage issues prior to Respondent commencing work.

Respondent presented the testimony of Jenny Bell Harris, Shawn Silvester, and James Burnett.

Ms. Harris testified that Complainant never signed any of the contracts provided by Respondent. Ms. Harris testified that Respondent only removed about 20% of the preexisting pavers. Further, Ms. Harris testified that with the consent of Complainant, Respondent’s workers tried their best to blend the new pavers in with the old patter which explained some of the gaps and the disruption of the existing pattern.

Ms. Harris also testified that she informed Investigator Richards several times that she believed that some of the areas which he noted were deficient, were not areas Respondent was hired to perform work.

As to the plumbing issue, Ms. Harris testified that the scope of work was complete as there was hot water running to the sink.

Next, Shawn Silvester testified that in his opinion, there was no defective work, and that any of the issues were warranty work which could have been corrected. Mr. Silvester also testified that he believed that the driveway always had drainage issues as evidenced by the existing drain by the garage.

Finally, Mr. Burnett testified that he was the subcontractor hired to perform the plumbing work. Mr. Burnett acknowledged that he found an issue initially, as the hot water had been turned off. Mr. Burnett testified as well that he believed it was the recirculating pump that was causing the issue, but that he did not perform work on the same.

Administrative notice was taken of Respondent’s prior License record on May 19, 2026. Such prior License record reflected that Respondent’s License No. 292996 was first issued June 24, 2014. The license record also reflected that there was one open case, namely the present case.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

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

Complainant bears the burden of proof to establish Respondent’s statutory violations by a preponderance of the evidence. See A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2); A.A.C. R2-19-119(A) and A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1); see also Vazzano v. Superior Court, 74 Ariz. 369, 372, 249 P.2d 837 (1952). “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).

The preponderance of the evidence established that there was a violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) – R4-9-108(A), as there were issues with the workmanship of the pavers which were installed by Respondent, and the hot water issues throughout the remainder of the house as a result of the subcontractor’s work on the plumbing line.

Finally, the preponderance of the evidence credibly established that despite Respondent’s efforts to correct the gaps, they were still out of tolerance. Further, per Complainant’s testimony, she hired a new contractor to repair the plumbing so hot water would be restored to all areas of the home. Therefore, Complainant 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).

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Based on the foregoing, it is recommended that on the effective date of the Order, the Registrar shall suspend Respondent’s License No. 292996 for a period of one day.

It is further recommended that the Registrar require Respondent to pay the sum of $100.00 as a civil penalty pursuant to A.R.S. § 32-1154(E).

It is further recommended that if Respondent fails to pay the entire amount of the civil penalty on or before thirty days following the effective date of the Registrar’s final order, the Registrar revoke Respondent’s license, effective on such deadline date. No future license shall be issued to any entity consisting of persons associated with Respondent, as defined in A.R.S. § 32-1101(A)(7), unless Respondent tenders payment of any outstanding prior civil penalty.

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, May 19, 2026.

/s/ Adam D. Stone

Administrative Law Judge

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

Tom Cole, Director

Registrar of Contractors

Adam Weisman, Esq.

Hinderaker. Rauh & Weisman, P.L.C.

[email redacted]

Dennis A. Rosen, Esq.

Law Offices of Dennis A. Rosen

[email redacted]

By: OAH Staff