ALJDEC - Licensing

2025A-04970-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2025-12-09

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

Christian Vazquez,

COMPLAINANT

v.

Desert Boys Electric LLC

License No. ROC 343205,

RESPONDENT

No. 2025A-04970-CHC-ROC

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION

HEARING: November 17, 2025

APPEARANCES:

Complainant: Christian Vazquez

Respondent: Issac Garcia

Registrar of Contractors: Aaron King, Investigator

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Nedra-Su Kawasaki

EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: Administrative notice was taken of the Notice of Hearing Packet submitted by the Registrar of Contractors. Department Supplemental Exhibit 1.

_____________________________________________________________________

FINDINGS OF FACT

Desert Boys Electric, LLC (Respondent) was the holder of License No. 343205 issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (Registrar) on February 14, 2023.

On or about April 14, 2024, Christian Vazquez (Complainant) entered into an oral contract with Respondent for, among other things, electrical work and building a TV wall.

On or about May 20, 2025, Complainant filed a Licensed Complaint Form with the Registrar, claiming poor work.

The Registrar assigned the complaint to Investigator Aaron King, who issued a Jobsite Inspection Notice on May 20, 2025, scheduling the inspection for June 25, 2025.

Investigator King conducted the jobsite inspection on June 25, 2025, and Respondent was not present. Following the inspection, Investigator King issued a Written Directive From the Registrar to Respondent on June 26, 2025, that provided as follows:

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

Complaint Item: 1 - LEDGER STONE I PURCHASED FOR THE JOB WAS NOT PUT ON CORRECTLY AND VERY MESSY. THERE IS MORTAR ON MOST OF THE STONE FACE

Investigator’s Observation: Under Complaint 2025-04970, the Complainant presented a fireplace wall finished with ledger stone and alleged that the stone was not installed correctly and was left in a messy condition, specifically noting mortar residue across most of the stone face. During the inspection, I observed that the ledger stone installation was performed in a manner not consistent with professional or workmanlike practices. Several stones were installed noticeably crooked, drawing immediate attention. Multiple areas showed excessive and inconsistent gaps between stones, and a significant portion of the surface exhibited mortar smears on the stone face, especially on the front, left, and right sides of the wall. Numerous stones were visibly chipped or broken, either installed in that condition or damaged during or after installation and not replaced. Corners were poorly executed, with open voids and sharp protrusions, and the black metal face of the fireplace was visibly marred by hardened white mortar. Review of the invoice provided by the Complainant confirms that “Labor for fireplace tv wall,” including framing, Sheetrock, and tile panel install, was listed under the scope of work, which substantiates that the stonework in question was part of the contracted job. However, the Respondent, Desert Boys Electric LLC, holds only a CR-11 Electrical license. The work performed involving stone veneer, drywall, and other non-electrical trades is outside the scope of a CR-11 license and thus constitutes unlicensed contracting under A.R.S. § 32- 1151 and a violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(4) for acting outside the scope of license. Additionally, the Arizona Registrar of Contractors Workmanship Standards, Section II(A)(1), states that “All work shall be done in a workmanlike manner,” which is defined as “a manner generally considered proficient by those capable of judging such work.” This standard was not met. Furthermore, ANSI A108.02, Section 4.3.7 and 4.3.8, governs tile and stone veneer installations and states that "finished work shall be free from lippage, voids, and exposed setting materials" and requires surfaces to be free of residue. The Respondent failed to provide a contract meeting the minimum requirements set by A.A.C. R4-9-108, and a warning letter was sent advising that future contracts must include all nine required elements. Because this type of work is outside the legal scope of the Respondent’s license, the ROC cannot allow the Respondent to personally perform or supervise corrective work. Therefore, the Respondent must coordinate with the Complainant to fund correction by a properly licensed contractor who is authorized to perform stone veneer installations. The Respondent will not participate in selection, supervision, or direction of the corrective work, as doing so would constitute unlicensed contracting. The Respondent will correct the deficient stone veneer installation by financially covering the full cost of repair or replacement by an appropriately licensed professional or through other negotiated types of settlement with the Complainant.

Complaint Item: 4 - PATCHES DO NOT MATCH TEXTURED WALLS

Investigator’s Observation: At the time of the inspection, I observed multiple drywall repair patches in various locations throughout the home that did not blend with the surrounding hand-applied texture. These patches stood out prominently, which is contrary to the purpose of hand-applied texture, which is to allow for blending and inconspicuous repairs. Numerous areas had globs of drywall compound that were left to dry without sanding, and some areas were visibly bulging or uneven. Several wall-to-floor intersections had voids or incomplete finish work. These issues were visible regardless of lighting conditions and suggest the repairs were not performed in a professional or workmanlike manner. The work remained unfinished, with several areas requiring additional sanding and preparation before painting could be considered. This drywall repair work is not listed within the contracted scope provided by the Respondent, and the Respondent holds a CR-11 Electrical license which does not authorize drywall installation or repair. As the Respondent failed to provide a legally compliant contract containing all nine required elements, a warning letter was issued instructing them to comply with future contracting requirements. The workmanship deficiencies in the drywall repairs constitute violations of the Arizona Registrar of Contractors Workmanship Standards, specifically Section II.A.2, which states: "All interior surfaces shall be uniform in appearance, texture and color. They shall be free of foreign substances, dents, cracks, nail pops, seams and other voids and physical defects at the time of acceptance of the project." Additionally, the improper execution of drywall repairs by an unlicensed party falls outside the scope of licensure authorized under the CR-11 classification. Therefore, the Respondent will work with the Complainant to retain a properly licensed contractor to perform the necessary corrections, and the Respondent will be responsible for satisfying the financial cost of those corrective efforts. The Respondent may not supervise, direct, or engage in the physical correction of this work as doing so would constitute unlicensed contracting activity.

The Written Directive required Respondent to notify Investigator King of Respondent’s compliance with the directive prior to 5:00 p.m. on July 15, 2025.

At the Jobsite Inspection on June 25, 2025, Complainant noted concerns to Investigator King there were not listed as complaint items for review. Therefore, Complainant asked for an addendum to the Complaint. Investigator King, added the additional complaint items.

Investigator King issued an Amended Jobsite Inspection Notice on July 17, 2025, scheduling the inspection for August 5, 2025.

Investigator King conducted the amended jobsite inspection on August 5, 2025, and Respondent was present for the addendum items only. Following the inspection, Investigator King was only able to verify the initial jobsite inspection items; there was not enough evidence to verify the addendum complaint items. Investigator King re-issued the initial Written Directive From the Registrar to Respondent on August 6, 2025, with a completion deadline of August 21, 2025.

On or after the Directive deadline, Complainant informed Investigator King that no corrective work had been done on the project; therefore, a Compliance Inspection was not performed.

On September 30, 2025, the Registrar issued a Citation against Respondent, finding cause to charge Respondent with violations of A.R.S. §§ 32-1154(A)(16) and 1154(A)(22).

Respondent submitted an Answer to the Citation on October 5, 2025. Respondent’s Answer asserted that the license should not be suspended or revoked because the work in the complaint items was subcontracted/referred to someone else on Complainant’s request. Respondent further asserted that Complainant insisted the contractor did not need to be licensed because Complainant wanted the most efficient cost. Respondent stated, “The only mistake I made was to add the framing sheetrock scope to the same invoice.” Respondent further stated that though Respondent did not supervise the work, when Complainant refused to pay the subcontractor, Respondent paid the subcontractor as good faith.

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

On October 17, 2025, the Registrar issued a Notice of Hearing on Contested Case setting the hearing for November 17, 2025.

The hearing was held via Google Meet on November 17, 2025.

Investigator King testified in support of his jobsite inspection findings, the Written Directive, and the Citation. Specifically, Investigator King testified that during his inspection he discovered that Respondent’s license—CR-11, Electrical—did not cover the “things” noted in the invoice provided for scope of work by Respondent, in particular those items pertaining to framing, sheetrock, drywall, tile panel installation, carpentry, and structural modification. Therefore, Investigator King testified, he found that Respondent contracted outside the scope of its license. Additionally, Investigator King testified that although there was no formal written contract, Complainant provided a handwritten note detailing the oral agreement between the parties. Investigator King determined at the jobsite inspection that the work he was asked to inspect matched what was invoiced, thus the preponderance of the evidence led him to make his conclusions and issue the Written Directive.

Complainant testified in support of the hearing packet documents and Investigator King’s testimony.

Mr. Garcia, testified on behalf of Respondent in support of the statements made in Respondent’s Answer filed October 5, 2025. Additionally, Mr. Garcia testified that he believed an unlicensed handyman could do stonework in Arizona and he only added the work to Respondent’s invoice as a favor.

Administrative notice was taken of Respondent’s prior License record on November 17, 2025. According to that record, Respondent’s License No. 343205 was Active; and there was one open complaint (instant matter), no disciplined cases, and no resolved/settled complaints 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. 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 knowingly contracted beyond the scope of its license(s) in violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(16).

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).

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Based on the foregoing, it is recommended that on the effective date of the Order, the Registrar shall suspend for two business days Respondent’s License No. 343205.

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, December 9, 2025.

/s/ Nedra-Su Kawasaki

Administrative Law Judge

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

Tom Cole, Director

Registrar of Contractors

Aaron King

[email redacted]

Christian Vazquez

[email redacted]

Desert Boys Electric LLC

[email redacted]

By: OAH Staff