ALJDEC - Licensing
2025A-05086-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2025-12-22
IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
Sabrinas Palice,
COMPLAINANT
v.
PRECISION ASPHALT AND SEALCOATING, LLC
DBA: Black and Yellow Paving,
License No. ROC 334701,
RESPONDENT
No. 2025A-05086-CHC-ROC
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION
HEARING: December 15, 2025
APPEARANCES:
Complainant: Timothy C. Bode, Esq.
Noria Edwards
Bernadette Denault
Raul Martinez
Respondent: Lawrence Felder, Esq.
John Fahrenbruch
Registrar of Contractors: Heath Richards, 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.
_____________________________________________________________________
FINDINGS OF FACT
Precision Asphalt and Sealcoating, LLC DBA: Black and Yellow Paving (Respondent) was the holder of License No. 334701 issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (Registrar) on September 2, 2021.
On or about April 4, 2025, Sabrina’s Place (Complainant) entered into a contract with Respondent for, among other things, sealcoat, crack seal, and line stripe painting.
On or about May 22, 2025, Complainant filed a Licensed Complaint Form with the Registrar, claiming abandonment and poor work.
The Registrar assigned the complaint to Investigator Heath Richards, who issued a Jobsite Inspection Notice on June 11, 2025, scheduling the inspection for July 3, 2025.
Investigator Richards conducted the jobsite inspection on July 3, 2025, and Respondent was present. Following the inspection, Investigator Richards issued a Written Directive From the Registrar to Respondent on July 11, 2025, that provided as follows:
You are directed to remedy the following violations by the appropriate means:
Complaint Item: 3 - “Lots of cracks were not filled with sand or gravel as indicated in contract.. cracks deeper than .5 inches were not fill”
Investigator’s Observation: At the jobsite inspection, I could not visually inspect if cracks had been filled with sand prior to sealing. Many of the unfilled and unsealed areas the Complainant pointed out appear to be “alligator cracks”. Also known as fatigue cracking. The contract specifically states “no warranty for alligator cracks and they will not be sealed”. However, a number of cracks remained unfilled and unsealed that did not seem to meet the description of “alligator cracks”. Respondent shall correct by the appropriate means.
Complaint Item: 6(A) – “stripping lines were crooked...”
Investigator’s Observation: At the job site inspection the Complainant explained that she was referring to the parking stall lines. Parking stall lines were visibly wavy throughout project. Respondent shall correct by the appropriate means.
The Written Directive required Respondent to notify Investigator Richards of Respondent’s compliance with the directive prior to 5:00 p.m. on August 11, 2025.
On August 13, 2025, Investigator Richards issued a Compliance Inspection Notice, setting the inspection for August 20, 2025. The compliance inspection was rescheduled to August 25, 2025. During the inspection, Compliance Item 6 was deemed not completed.
On September 12, 2025, the Registrar issued a Citation against Respondent, finding cause to charge Respondent with a violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(A).
Respondent submitted an Answer to the Citation on September 25, 2025. Respondent’s Answer asserted that Respondent did not violate any rule and performed work in a professional and workmanlike manner. Complainant breached the written contract by not remitting payment as agreed in the contract and had unpaid invoices.
The Registrar referred the matter to the Office of Administrative Hearings, an independent state agency, for an evidentiary hearing.
On October 10, 2025, the Registrar issued a Notice of Hearing on Contested Case setting the hearing for November 13, 2025.
On or about November 11, 2025, Respondent, by and through Counsel, requested the hearing be continued because Counsel was just hired that day and needed time to prepare.
On or about November 14, 2025, the parties were notified the hearing was continued to December 15, 2025. The order granting the continuance, from the Office of Administrative Hearings, advised the parties how to connect to the hearing via Google Meet.
The hearing was held via Google Meet on December 15, 2025.
Investigator Richards testified in support of his jobsite inspection findings, the Written Directive, compliance inspection findings, and the Citation.
Raul Martinez, a civil engineer, testified in support of the report he prepared for Complainant on July 2, 2025.
Noria Edwards, owner of Complainant’s property, testified that she met Respondent the day Respondent came to perform corrective work per the Written Directive. She testified that Mr. Fahrenbruch agreed that the parking lot stripes were not the “best job.” Ms. Edwards testified that on that day, Respondent’s crew was onsite working from 9:00 AM until 1:00 PM. During that time, the crew worked on the asphalt cracks and some of the stripes.
Bernadette Denault, Manager of Complainant property, testified that she had multiple conversations, including in writing, with Respondent regarding the issue of the stripes not being painted straight. She testified that Respondent scheduled two days to complete the corrective work, but was only onsite one day for four hours. Ms. Denault further testified that there were security cameras on the property and she walked the property daily, but she did not witness Respondent completing corrective work at any other time.
John Fahrenbruch, Qualifying Party, testified on behalf of Respondent that that Respondent had been in business since August 2021 and never had a problem. Mr. Fahrenbruch testified that Respondent could perform the work for which it was contracted; however, Complainant’s parking lots were uneven and had been neglected for years, which affected the results, stating “It makes it impossible to get a straight line on a lot like this.” Mr. Fahrenbruch stated that dips and depressions were present in the lot prior to Respondent beginning work, but fixing them was not part of Respondent’s contract. He further testified that Respondent used a machine to paint the stripes and if the ground was uneven, the machine would move with each “bump” resulting in a crooked or “wavy” line. Mr. Fahrenbruch stated it was hard to get a straight line on a badly damaged lot.
Administrative notice was taken of Respondent’s prior License record on December 15, 2025. According to that record, Respondent’s License No. 334701 was Active; and there was one open complaint (instant matter), no cases of discipline, and two 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.”
A contractor accepts the surface upon which they work. Prior to performing work, a contractor should inspect the surface for flaws or defects that would affect the work to be performed; if the surface is unacceptable, the contractor should call the defect to the owner’s attention so that the owner can choose to pay for corrective work or for the contractor to request a warranty disclaimer.
In the instant matter, Respondent testified that the parking lot had been neglected for years, dips and depressions were present prior to work beginning, and the lot was so badly damaged that painting a straight line was nearly impossible. Respondent did not bring these defects to Complainant’s attention, allowing Complainant an opportunity to have the surface corrected prior to Respondent’s starting work, nor did Respondent obtain a warranty disclaimer. Therefore, Respondent accepted the parking lot surface condition when it began work.
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).
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Based on the foregoing, it is recommended that on the effective date of the Order, the Registrar shall suspend for one business day Respondent’s License No. 334701.
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 22, 2025.
/s/ Nedra-Su Kawasaki
Administrative Law Judge
Transmitted by either mail, e-mail, or facsimile to:
Tom Cole, Director
Registrar of Contractors
Lawrence J. Felder, Esq.
Resolvere Law PLLC
[email redacted]
[email redacted]
PRECISION ASPHALT AND SEALCOATING, LLC
DBA: Black and Yellow Paving
[email redacted]
Heath Richards, Investigator
Registrar of Contractors
[email redacted]
Sabrinas Place
[email redacted]
Timothy C. Bode,
Tiffany & Bosco Pa
[email redacted]
By: OAH Staff