ALJDEC - Licensing
2025A-04774-NPC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2025-09-08
IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
Arizona CG, LLC,
COMPLAINANT
v.
Micela Properties Inc.
License No. ROC 202053,
RESPONDENT
No. 2025A-04774-NPC-ROC
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION
HEARING: August 22, 2025
APPEARANCES: Gina Weber appeared via Google Meet on behalf of Complainant Arizona CG LLC.
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Adam D. Stone
EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE:
_____________________________________________________________________
FINDINGS OF FACT
On July 16, 2025, the Registrar of Contractors (“ROC”) issued a Notice of Hearing on Contested Case setting the matter for hearing on August 22, 2025, at the Office of Administrative Hearings. The Notice of Hearing was sent to Respondent’s address of record.
On July 23, 2025, the tribunal issued an Order containing the Google Meet information which was also sent to the parties e-mail address of record.
On May 13, 2025, Complainant, Arizona CG, LLC filed a complaint against Respondent alleging that Respondent owed Complainant monies on invoice 1388 in the amount of $22,820.00.
Through the citation and Notice of Hearing, ROC alleges that Respondent may have violated Ariz. Rev. Stat. section 32-1154(A)(10).
Respondent holds License No. 202053 issued by ROC, and timely provided an Answer on July 2, 2025.
Respondent provided and installed artificial turf on a project for which Complainant was the general contractor.
The hearing was held on August 22, 2025. The tribunal waited approximately 15 minutes for a representative from Respondent to appear however, Respondent failed to do so. Therefore, Respondent did not present any evidence to defend its license.
Gina Weber testified as to the amount due, and that zero payment had been made.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Unless otherwise provided by law, a party asserting a claim, right, or entitlement bears the burden of proof; a party asserting an affirmative defense has the burden of establishing the affirmative defense. The standard of proof on all issues in this matter is that of a preponderance of the evidence. Ariz. Admin. Code § R2-19-119.
“At a hearing on an agency action to suspend, revoke, terminate or modify on its own initiative material conditions of a license or permit, the agency has the burden of persuasion.” Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 41-1092.07(G)(2).
A preponderance of the evidence is:
The greater weight of the evidence, not necessarily established by the greater number of witnesses testifying to a fact but by evidence that has the most convincing force; superior evidentiary weight that, though not sufficient to free the mind wholly from all reasonable doubt, is still sufficient to incline a fair and impartial mind to one side of the issue rather than the other.
Black’s Law Dictionary 1373 (10th ed. 2014).
Statutes should be interpreted to provide a fair and sensible result. Gutierrez v. Industrial Commission of Arizona, 226 Ariz. 395, 249 P.3d 1095 (2011)(citation omitted); State v. McFall, 103 Ariz. 234, 238, 439 P.2d 805, 809 (1968) ("Courts will not place an absurd and unreasonable construction on statutes.").
“Statutes shall be liberally construed to effect their objects and to promote justice.” Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 1-211(B).
The purpose of the Registrar’s licensing statutes is to protect the public from unscrupulous, unqualified, and financially irresponsible contractors. See Aesthetic Property Maintenance v. Capital Indem. Corp., 183 Ariz. 74, 900 P. 2d 1210 (1995).
Among the grounds for suspension or revocation of a contractor’s license is a “[f]ailure by [the] licensee . . . to pay monies in excess of seven hundred fifty dollars when due for materials or services rendered in connection with the licensee’s operations as a contractor when the licensee has the capacity to pay or, if the licensee lacks the capacity to pay, when the licensee has received sufficient monies as payment for the particular construction work project or operation for which the services or materials were rendered or purchased.” Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(10).
The preponderance of the evidence shows that Respondent owes Complainant more than $750.00 for materials purchased and work performed in connection with Respondent’s operations as a contractor. From the credible evidence provided, the tribunal finds that $22,820.00 has been due and owing since November 25, 2024, and that Respondent has failed to pay without a valid legal excuse.
Therefore, the preponderance of the evidence shows that Respondent has violated section 32-1154(A)(10).
Respondent’s license should be suspended until it pays to Complainant $22,820.00.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
IT IS RECOMMENDED that Micela Properties Inc.’s license number 202053 be suspended until the Registrar receives proof that it has paid to Arizona CG, LLC $22,820.00.
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, September 8, 2025.
/s/ Adam D. Stone
Administrative Law Judge
Transmitted by either mail, e-mail, or facsimile to:
Tom Cole, Director
Registrar of Contractors
Micela Properties Inc
[email redacted]
Arizona CG, LLC
[email redacted]
By: OAH Staff