ALJDEC - Licensing

2025A-04791-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2025-10-21

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

Linda D Vargas,

COMPLAINANT,

v.

A1 Roofing Inc.,

License No. ROC 318039,

RESPONDENT.

No. 2025A-04791-CHC-ROC

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION

HEARING: October 1, 2025.

APPEARANCES:

For Complainant: Linda Vargas.

For Respondent: No appearance.

For the Registrar of Contractors: Investigator John Peru.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Samuel Fox

EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: Notice of Hearing Packet submitted by the Registrar of Contractors.

_____________________________________________________________________

FINDINGS OF FACT

A1 Roofing Inc. (Respondent) was the holder of License No. 318039 issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (Registrar) on February 21, 2018.

On or about March 18, 2025, Linda Vargas (Complainant) entered into a contract with Respondent for, among other things, roof replacement services.

On or about May 13, 2025, Complainant filed a Licensed Complaint Form with the Registrar, claiming poor work.

The Registrar assigned the complaint to Investigator John Peru, who conducted a properly noticed Jobsite Inspection on June 25, 2025. Respondent was not present. Following the inspection, Investigator Peru issued a Written Directive From the Registrar to Respondent on July 1, 2025, requiring Respondent to remedy the identified violations in complaint items 3 and 4 by appropriate means by July 16, 2025.

Complainant informed Investigator Peru that no work had been performed, and no compliance inspection was performed.

On July 22, 2025, the Registrar issued a Citation against Respondent, finding cause to charge Respondent with violations of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3), specifically R4-9-108(A), and A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22).

Respondent submitted an Answer to the Citation on August 5, 2025.

The Registrar referred the matter to the Office of Administrative Hearings, an independent state agency, for an evidentiary hearing.

The Notice of Hearing and the virtual hearing order were provided to Respondent at its contact information of record.

Respondent did not request that the hearing be further continued. Although the start of the hearing was delayed 15 minutes, Respondent did not appear through an authorized member, employee, or attorney. Consequently, Respondent did not present any evidence to defend its license.

Investigator Peru testified in support of his findings.

Complainant testified in support of Investigator Peru’s findings.

Respondent did not present evidence.

Administrative notice was taken of Respondent’s prior License record on October 15, 2025. According to that record, Respondent’s License No. 318039 was active; it had seven open cases and two resolved cases.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

Respondent was deemed to have received the Notice of Hearing by methods reasonably calculated to effect notice. The Registrar mailed copies of the Notice of Hearing on Contested Case to its address and email address of record, and the Office of Administrative Hearings sent the order setting the continued hearing date to Respondent at its email address of record.

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.”

The preponderance of the evidence established that Respondent failed to perform all work in a professional and workmanlike manner in violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(A).

The preponderance of the evidence 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).

“The registrar may impose a civil penalty of not to exceed $500 on a contractor for each violation of subsection A, paragraph 22 of this section.” If a licensee fails to pay the civil penalty, their license is automatically revoked “thirty days after the effective date of the order providing for the civil penalty.” Additionally, any “person who is or was named on a license. . . may not receive a new license under this chapter until the entire civil penalty is paid.”

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Based on the foregoing, it is recommended that on the effective date of the Order, the Registrar shall suspend for three days Respondent’s License No. 318039.

It is further recommended that the Registrar require Respondent to pay the sum of $200.00 as a civil penalty pursuant to A.R.S. § 32-1154(E).

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, October 21, 2025.

/s/ Samuel Fox

Administrative Law Judge

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

Tom Cole, Director

Registrar of Contractors

John Peru

[email redacted]

A1 Roofing Inc

[email redacted]

Linda D Vargas

[email redacted]

By: OAH Staff