ALJDEC - Licensing
2025A-04689-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2026-03-05
IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
Carrick Sears
COMPLAINANT,
v.
LHH/Amarillas Bros Construction LLC
DBA: QFI Construction,
License No. ROC 323310,
RESPONDENT.
No. 2025A-04689-CHC-ROC
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION
HEARING: February 13, 2026
APPEARANCES: Carrick Sears appeared on behalf of himself. No one appeared on behalf of LHH/Amarillas Bros Construction LLC DBA: QFI Construction (LHH).
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Velva Moses-Thompson
_____________________________________________________________________
FINDINGS OF FACT
On July 14, 2024, Mr. Sears and LHH entered into a commercial construction
agreement for the amount of $20,000.00.
On January 6, 2025, LHH started work.
On April 25, 2025, LHH stopped work.
On or about May 18, 2025, Mr. Sears filed a complaint with the Arizona Registrar
of Contractors (Registrar) alleging abandonment and poor work on the part of LHH.
The Registrar assigned the complaint to one of its investigators, David Cooke
(Investigator Cooke).
On June 16, 2025, Investigator Cooke conducted a job-site inspection.
On June 17, 2025, the Registrar issued a Directive to LHH requiring that LHH
correct several items from the complaint, by appropriate means, no later than July 7, 2025. The Directive provided, in relevant part, as follows:
............................................................................
You are directed to remedy the following violations by the appropriate means:
Complaint Item: 1 - The cement header bar is curved and is not in a straight
line and has a definite bump out where the two boards meet
Investigator’s Observation: The concrete footing, that the deck attaches to,
was visibly out of square. Approximately 8' from the eastern edge of the deck,
there is a noticeable misalignment where the two ledger boards meet. The
concrete header was pointed out, by the complainant, to have a noticeable
curved shape. The respondent shall correct this by 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: 3 - The solo tubes are not in a straight line.
Investigator’s Observation: The complainant showed a row of concrete
forms that were not in line with one another. The plans provided show these
footings to be in a linear progression. The respondent shall correct by
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: 5 - 6x6 posts were to be used not 4x4's
Investigator’s Observation: The plans provided show the eastern corner to
be a 6x6 post. A 4x4 was used in this location. The respondent shall correct by
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: 6 - The Beam in center & outside long edge should be
4x10s and not 2x8s
Investigator’s Observation: The plans provided shows a 4X10 beam to be
used in the center of the deck as well as at the southern edge of the deck. The
plans also show (2) 2x8s to be used along the western and eastern edge. A
single 2x8 was used around the entire perimeter. The respondent shall correct
by 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)
............................................................................
8. Investigator Cooke extended the deadline to comply with the Directive to August 23, 2025.
9. On August 14, 2025, Investigator Cooke conducted a compliance inspection. Investigator Cooke concluded that LHH corrected complaint item 1. Investigator Cooke concluded that LHH failed to correct complaint items 3, 5, and 6.
10. On August 20, 2025, the Registrar issued a Citation against LHH’s license. Through the Citation, the Registrar alleged that LHH had violated Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) § 32-1154(A)(3) - R4-9-108(a) and A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22).
11. LHH filed a timely answer to the Citation.
12. The matter was referred to the Office of Administrative Hearings for an evidentiary hearing.
13. At hearing, Mr. Sears testified on his own behalf and explained that LHH performed poor work. Investigator Cooke testified consistently with his job-site inspection notes, his findings in the Directive, and his compliance job-site inspection notes.
14. No one appeared on behalf of LHH at the hearing. LHH did
not submit a request to appear telephonically, nor a motion for continuance. LHH did not appear through an authorized member, employee, or attorney. Consequently, LHH did not present any evidence to defend its license.
15. There is no evidence that LHH subsequently contacted OAH to
provide an explanation for not appearing at the scheduled hearing.
16. Administrative notice is taken of LHH’s prior License record
on March 5, 2026. Such prior License record reflects that LHH’s License No. 323310 was first issued on January 18, 2019, and is active. Such prior License record also reflects that there are four open complaint against LHH’s license.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
This matter lies within the Registrar’s jurisdiction. See Ariz. Rev. Stat.
sections 32-1101 et seq.
Mr. Sears bears the burden of proof to establish LHH’s statutory
violation by a preponderance of the evidence. See Ariz. Rev. Stat. section 41-1092.07(G)(2); A.A.C. R2-19-119(A) and A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1); see also Vazanno 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 Administrative Law Judge may consider ROC’s administrative record.
See A.A.C. § R4-9-118.
The preponderance of the evidence shows that LHH did not perform
work in a professional and workmanlike manner, which is a violation of A.A.C. R4-9-108(A), and thereby of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3).
4. The preponderance of the evidence shows that LHH failed to comply with 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 suspend License No. 323310 issued to LHH/Amarillas Bros Construction LLC DBA: QFI Construction, LLC, for five days. It is further recommended that the Registrar require LHH to pay the sum of $500.00 as a civil penalty pursuant to Ariz. Rev. Stat. section 32-1154(E).
It is further recommended that if LHH 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 LHH’s license, effective on such deadline date. No future license shall be issued to any entity consisting of persons associated with LHH, as defined in Ariz. Rev. Stat. section 32-1101(A)(7), unless LHH 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, March 5, 2026.
/s/ Velva Moses-Thompson
Administrative Law Judge
Transmitted by either mail, e-mail, or facsimile to:
Tom Cole, Director
Registrar of Contractors
Carrick Sears
[email redacted]
LHH/Amarillas Bros Construction LLC
DBA: QFI Construction,
[email redacted]
By: OAH Staff