ALJDEC - Licensing

2025A-04699-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2025-10-08

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

Veronica Sarver,

COMPLAINANT,

v.

Samuel David Hopkins

DBA: Bullheaded Enterprises,

License No. ROC 357767,

RESPONDENT.

No. 2025A-04699-CHC-ROC

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION

HEARING: September 18, 2025 at 1:00pm

APPEARANCES: Complainant Veronica Sarver on her own behalf. Respondent Samuel David Hopkins, DBA: Bullheaded Enterprises on his own behalf. Investigator Gregory Kinsfather on behalf of the Arizona Registrar of Contractors.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Nicole Robinson

EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: Arizona Registrar of Contractors Notice of Hearing packet (“Packet”).

FINDINGS OF FACT

Bullheaded Enterprises (“Respondent”) is the holder of License No. ROC 357767 issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (“Registrar”).

On or about April 20, 2025, Veronica Sarver (“Complainant”) entered into a contract with Respondent for, among other things, a new roof at her residential home located in Maricopa, Arizona. The contract amount totaled $16,650.00 and Complainant paid Respondent $12,603.54. Respondent began work on the project on April 26, 2025 and work stopped on May 8, 2025.

On May 9, 2025, the Registrar received a Complaint against Respondent from Complainant alleging poor work with respect to the project.

The Registrar assigned the complaint to Investigator Gregory Kinsfather. Investigator Kinsfather scheduled a jobsite inspection on June 11, 2025, with Complainant present. Respondent communicated with Investigator Kinsfather that he would not attend the inspection because he did not feel safe and was threatened by Complainant’s fiancée, Oscar.

On June 30, 2025, Investigator Kinsfather issued a Written Directive to Respondent that provided 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 Tuesday, July 15, 2025.

. . . .

DIRECTIVE REQUIREMENTS

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

Complaint Item: 3 - Improper nailing of sheathing causing shiners. We had to fix before proceeding.

Investigator’s Observation: At the time of the inspection, the project was incomplete, as such the respondent shall complete the project by appropriate means to minimum workmanship standards.

. . . .

Complaint Item: 4 - no chalk line marked at beginning of sheet installation, causing improper nailing, misalignment, and shiners.

Investigator’s Observation: At the time of the inspection, the project was incomplete, as such the respondent shall complete the project by appropriate means to minimum workmanship standards.

. . . .

Complaint Item: 5 - Improper cutting techniques of plywood and being out of squareness.

Investigator’s Observation: At the time of the inspection, the project was incomplete, as such the respondent shall complete the project by appropriate means to minimum workmanship standards.

. . . .

Complaint Item: 6 - vent openings left jagged cuts compromising plywood integrity.

Investigator’s Observation: At the time of the inspection, the project was incomplete, as such the respondent shall complete the project by appropriate means to minimum workmanship standards.

. . . .

Complaint Item: 9 - Installation of drip edge was inferior. just pieced together after asking for more funds to purchase more drip edge.

Investigator’s Observation: At the time of the inspection, the project was incomplete, as such the respondent shall complete the project by appropriate means to minimum workmanship standards.

. . . .

Complaint Item: 10 - underlayment damaged due to having shingles adhere to underlayment due to being left out too long. cuts and tears found.

Investigator’s Observation: At the time of the inspection, the project was incomplete, as such the respondent shall complete the project by appropriate means to minimum workmanship standards.

. . . .

Complaint Item: 11 - Underlayment was not fastened according to instructions of the manufacturer.

Investigator’s Observation: At the time of the inspection, the project was incomplete, as such the respondent shall complete the project by appropriate means to minimum workmanship standards.

. . . .

Complaint Item: 12 - HVAC ventilation registers not fastened, and they hang high.

Investigator’s Observation: At the time of the inspection, the project was incomplete, as such the respondent shall complete the project by appropriate means to minimum workmanship standards.

. . . .

Complaint Item: 15 - No flashing installed under the air conditioning base, or any HVAC components.

Investigator’s Observation: At the time of the inspection, the project was incomplete, as such the respondent shall complete the project by appropriate means to minimum workmanship standards.

. . . .

Complaint Item: 16 - Shingles misaligned in rows.

Investigator’s Observation: At the time of the inspection, the project was incomplete, as such the respondent shall complete the project by appropriate means to minimum workmanship standards.

. . . .

Complaint Item: 17 - Nails on shingles either driven too far in or too far out.

Investigator’s Observation: At the time of the inspection, the project was incomplete, as such the respondent shall complete the project by appropriate means to minimum workmanship standards.

. . . .

Complaint Item: 18 - Nails left out too far causing damage to next row of shingles.

Investigator’s Observation: At the time of the inspection, the project was incomplete, as such the respondent shall complete the project by appropriate means to minimum workmanship standards.

. . . .

Complaint Item: 19 - Shingles damaged and installed anyway.

Investigator’s Observation: At the time of the inspection, the project was incomplete, as such the respondent shall complete the project by appropriate means to minimum workmanship standards.

. . . .

Complaint Item: 20 - Some of the shingle rows not nailed at all.

Investigator’s Observation: At the time of the inspection, the project was incomplete, as such the respondent shall complete the project by appropriate means to minimum workmanship standards.

. . . .

Complaint Item: 22 - Time of completion missed by over a week.

Investigator’s Observation: At the time of the inspection, the project was incomplete, as such the respondent shall complete the project by appropriate means to minimum workmanship standards.

. . . .

Following the issuance of the Written Directive, Respondent did not perform any corrective work.

After the deadline in the directive expired, Investigator Kinsfather was notified that no corrective work had been performed.

On July 23, 2025, the Registrar issued a Citation against Respondent, charging possible violations of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(1) and Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(22).

Hearing Evidence

Samuel David Hopkins, qualifying party of Respondent testified that he became acquainted with Carlos, an electrician, on a prior project. Mr. Hopkins stated that Carlos told him about Complainant’s roof. Mr. Hopkins testified that he went to the property and gave him a “good price” estimate to perform the work. Mr. Hopkins asserted that during the course of the project, Carlos made many demands, including suggesting repair items that were not a part of the original contract. Mr. Hopkins testified that Carlos began micromanaging him and his crew which led to verbal altercations. Mr. Hopkins further testified that Carlos told him that their neighbor was a roofer and could complete the job. Mr. Hopkins stated that on or about May 7, 2025, he was surrounded by Carlos and three other men, on-site where he was berated, and had to listen to Carlos talk about being a “firearm enthusiast.” In addition, Mr. Hopkins testified that Carlos told him that he was armed. Mr. Hopkins testified that on May 8, 2025, Carlos told him over the phone “You better not be there [at the property] when I get home.” Mr. Hopkins testified that after he received the threat from Carlos, he no longer felt safe to go back to the property. Mr. Hopkins explained that he completed about 90% of the contracted job and noted that there were only four to six shingles left to install out of a set of 32 shingles and some flashing around the air conditioning unit that remained undone. Mr. Hopkins testified that he did reach out to Carlos to try and retrieve his tools from the worksite but Mr. Hopkins phone number was blocked, he could not leave a message, and as a result his tools were left behind.

Investigator Kinsfather confirmed that Mr. Hopkins told him that he did not feel safe to go back to the property due to the threat by Carlos. Investigator Kinsfather testified that he did view texts that Mr. Hopkins sent him where there seemed to be “colorful words on both sides.” Investigator Kinsfather testified that the job was above 50% to 60% complete.

Complainant testified that on or about May 8, 2025, Carlos informed her that Mr. Hopkins would not be back to complete the project. Complainant testified that she was “upset” because they bought new plywood. Complainant testified that she recalled Carlos telling Mr. Hopkins to “fix this” and Mr. Hopkins got upset but she was not aware of any threats. Complainant filed the complaint with the Registrar after Carlos told her Respondent would not be back to complete the work. Complainant stated that after the written directive deadline period passed, Complainant hired another company to finish her roof and that she tried to have Mr. Hopkins tools returned to him. Also, Complainant agreed that the majority of the work was finished when she filed the complaint.

Administrative notice is taken of Respondent’s prior License record on September 18, 2025. Such prior License record reflects that Respondent’s License No. ROC 357767 was first issued on March 18, 2025, and is Active. Such prior License record also reflects that there were no complaints resulting in discipline 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. A preponderance of the evidence means “[p]roof which leads the trier of fact to find that the existence of the contested fact is more probable than its nonexistence.”

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(1) states “[a]bandonment of a contract or refusal to perform after submitting a bid on work without legal excuse for the abandonment or refusal. In this case, the evidence established that Mr. Hopkins was asked not to come back to the property. In fact, Mr. Hopkins credibly testified to the threats he received and reported to Investigator Kinsfather. As such, the evidence established that Respondent provided a legal excuse for refusing to go back up to the property, which was to protect himself from potential harm due to Carlos’ threats. Accordingly, Complainant failed to establish that Respondent abandoned the contract and failed to complete the project in violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(1)

Hence, Complainant failed to establish that Respondent failed to take appropriate corrective action following a written directive from the Registrar in violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(22).

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Based on the foregoing,

It is recommended that on the effective date of the Registrar’s Final Order in this matter, the Registrar close Complainant’s complaint in Case No. 2025-04699 against Respondent’s License No. ROC 357767.

Pursuant to Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 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 8, 2025.

/s/ Nicole Robinson

Administrative Law Judge

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

Tom Cole, Director

Registrar of Contractors

c/o Legal Department

1700 W. Washington Street, Suite 105

Phoenix, AZ 85007

[email redacted]

Samuel David Hopkins

DBA: Bullheaded Enterprises

19349 Albins Way

Black Canyon City, AZ 85324

[email redacted]

Veronica Sarver

49038 W. Julie Ln.

Maricopa, Arizona 85139

[email redacted]

Greg Kinsfather

[email redacted]

By: OAH Staff