ALJDEC - Licensing

2025A-04941-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2025-11-19

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

Roy Shepard,

COMPLAINANT,

v.

Sharp Manufacturing and Contracting LLC,

License No. ROC 294252,

RESPONDENT.

No. 2025A-04941-CHC-ROC

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION

HEARING: September 17, 2025 at 9:00am and October 29, 2025 at 1:00pm

APPEARANCES: Attorney Larry Felder appeared on behalf of Complainant Roy Shepard. Attorney Veronica Manolio appeared on behalf of Respondent Sharp Manufacturing and Contracting, LLC, with witnesses Alan Norton and William Norton. Investigator Doug Barrett appeared 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’). Complainant Exhibit 1. Respondent Exhibit.

FINDINGS OF FACT

Sharp Manufacturing and Contracting, LLC (“Respondent”) is the holder of License No. ROC 294252, first issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (“Registrar”) on September 9, 2014.

On or about February 3, 2025, Roy Shepard (“Complainant”) entered into a contract with Respondent for, among other things, to refresh the patio pool decking with stamped concrete. The contract amount totaled $12,772.84 and Complainant paid out a total amount of $17,746.57. The project was located at Complainant’s residential home located in Gilbert, Arizona and Respondent’s last day of work was on or about February 25, 2025.

On or about May 18, 2025, the Registrar received a Complaint against Respondent from Complainant alleging poor work with respect to the project.

On May 21, 2025, the Registrar assigned the complaint to Investigator Doug Barrett. On May 27, 2025, Investigator Barrett sent out notice to the parties about the complaint and upcoming jobsite inspection scheduled on June 9, 2025 at 10:45am. On May 27, 2025, Complainant informed Investigator Barrett by email that he could not attend the June 9, 2025 jobsite inspection due to prior scheduled doctor’s appointments and requested a reschedule.

On May 28, 2025, Investigator Barrett sent out notice to the parties about the new rescheduled jobsite inspection date on June 11, 2025 at 10:00am. Respondent was unavailable to attend the jobsite inspection on June 11, 2025, and requested a reschedule for the week of June 23rd. Complainant requested a jobsite inspection date prior to the week of June 23, 2025 and Investigator Barrett informed them that Respondent “returns” that week.

On June 9, 2025, Investigator Barrett sent out notice to the parties about the new rescheduled jobsite inspection date on June 23, 2025 at 11:00am. On June 23, 2025, Investigator Barrett conducted the jobsite inspection with both parties present.

On June 24, 2025, Investigator Barrett 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 Friday, July 18, 2025.

. . . .

DIRECTIVE REQUIREMENTS

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

Complaint Item: 1 - A lot of areas sanded, ground with grinder and roughed up exposing grey concrete with no dye color.

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. I observed numerous repairs to the edges of the stamped concrete patterns. Some of the repairs were left without coloring and others were painted/stained darker than the surrounding area and did not match closely, leaving streaks throughout the decking. Contractor should correct by appropriate means per industry standards.

. . . .

Complaint Item: 3 - Summarized: Large gap left above waterline tile at new concrete coping.

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. I observed the caulking under the pool coping at the top of the waterline tile with cracking and chunks missing throughout. Contractor should correct by appropriate means per industry standards.

. . . .

Complaint Item: 8 - Poor workmanship did not mix dye into concrete- 3 different colors -some areas are not repairable-multiple boot prints.

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. I observed three repaired stamp patterns that did not match the surrounding area colors. Refer to item number five for the boot prints. Contractor should correct the three areas by appropriate means as pointed out during the inspection.

. . . .

Complaint Item: 9 - Broken pool tile-ground pool tile-multiple cracks painted with colored water-expansion joints are not uniform.

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. The tile was not inspected as the complainant stated he will correct that item himself. I observed several minor cracks in the concrete patio as pointed out by the complainant and the cracks were within standards. However, the respondent attempted to repair the cracks in several locations leaving dark streaks that did not match the surrounding area. Contractor should correct the streaks by appropriate means.

. . . .

On July 22, 2025, Investigator Barrett performed a compliance inspection and noted in the Compliance Notes that Respondent was not present and that no corrective work was started or completed.

On July 23, 2025, the Registrar issued a Citation against Respondent, charging possible violations of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely Ariz. Admin. Code R4-9-108(A) and Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(22).

Hearing Evidence

William Norton, co-owner of Respondent testified that after he received notice of the complaint via the May 27, 2025, Registrar letter, he called Complainant on May 29, 2025 and June 2, 2025, and left voicemail messages. Mr. William Norton testified that he informed Complainant through the messages that he wanted to “discuss the complaint and its process.” Mr. Norton testified that he called Complainant because he wanted an opportunity to inspect the project prior to the jobsite inspection.

Complainant testified that he did receive Mr. Norton’s voicemails which he stated Mr. William Norton said, “I want to go over the process.” Complainant testified that he did not know Bill (“William”) Norton, he had only met Alan Norton. In addition, Complainant testified that Mr. William Norton never said in the voicemails that he wanted to conduct an inspection. Complainant testified that he never denied an inspection from Respondent because one was not requested and all he wanted was the corrective work completed. Complainant expressed that the first time he met Mr. William Norton was at the jobsite inspection.

Investigator Barrett testified that based on Mr. William Norton’s voicemails, he believed that Respondent did not ask Complainant to inspect the project. In addition, Investigator Barrett argued that he did not find that there was a denial of access to Complainant’s property, hence, he moved forward with the Written Directive due to the workmanship issues.

Mr. William Norton expressed that he agreed to the jobsite inspection but believed Respondent was denied due process because his right to inspect did not occur within the fifteen (15) day window. In addition, Mr. William Norton testified that Investigator Barrett told Complainant that Complainant, did not have to return his call. In addition, Mr. William Norton testified that he received no return call from Complainant from May 29, 2025 to June 11, 2025. The fifteenth day fell on June 11, 2025. Mr. William Norton testified that he and Mr. Alan Norton were not in town from June 9, 2025 through June 11, 2025.

Investigator Barrett denied Mr. William Norton’s claim that he told Complainant that he did not have to call Mr. William Norton back. Investigator Barrett reiterated that he informed Complainant that he had to allow Respondent the opportunity to inspect, however, if no request was made then the Shepards could wait until the jobsite inspection.

Mr. Alan Norton testified that Respondent tried to work with Complainant and attempted to perform corrective work prior to the Complaint filing.

Administrative notice was taken of Respondent’s prior License record on September 17, 2025. Such prior License record reflects that Respondent’s License No. ROC 294252 was Active. Such prior License record also reflects that there were two open complaints and one complaint 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. § 32-1155(D)(1) states that the Registrar may not issue a citation for failure to perform work in a professional and workmanlike manner or in accordance with any applicable building codes and professional industry standards if (1) the contractor is not provided an opportunity to inspect the work within fifteen days after receiving a written notice from the Registrar.

Respondent argued that this matter should have been dismissed and that no Citation should have been issued because Respondent was denied the opportunity to inspect the project by June 11, 2025. However, the evidence established that there was no clear request from Respondent to Complainant to inspect the project by June 11, 2025. The expectation that Complainant should have asked Respondent if they want to inspect the project prior to the jobsite inspection was unreasonable. Furthermore, there was no convincing evidence presented that Complainant denied access to inspect the property by June 11, 2025. There was evidence that showed Complainant and Respondent had conflicts in dates whereby the jobsite inspection had to be rescheduled multiple times. Due to Respondent’s affirmative defense, the burden shifts to Respondent. Respondent has failed to meet its burden by a preponderance of the evidence based on the aforementioned reasons.

As such, the burden shifts back to Complainant. In regards to the workmanship issues, Respondent failed to provide any evidence as to why the corrective work was not performed by the Written Directive deadline on July 18, 2025. In this case, the evidence established that Respondent’s work was not in conformity with the Registrar’s standards. Therefore, Complainant established that Respondent did not complete the project in a workmanlike manner in violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely Ariz. Admin. Code R4-9-108(A).

Lastly, the evidence established that Respondent did not attempt to complete the corrective work following the Directive being issued. Therefore, Complainant established 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 Order, the Registrar shall suspend Respondent’s License No. ROC 294252 for a period of one day.

It is further recommended that the Registrar require Respondent to pay the sum of $250.00 as a civil penalty pursuant to Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 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 Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1101(A)(5), unless Respondent tenders payment of any outstanding prior civil penalty.

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, November 19, 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]

Veronica L. Manolio

Manolio & Firestone, PLC

8674 E. San Alberto Drive

Scottsdale, Arizona 85258

[email redacted]

[email redacted]

Lawrence J. Felder, Esq.

Resolvere Law PLLC

3101 N Central Ave Ste. 850

Phoenix, AZ 85012

[email redacted]

[email redacted]

Doug Barrett

[email redacted]

By: OAH Staff