ALJDEC - Licensing

2025A-05159-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2026-03-20

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

Grace Kv,

COMPLAINANT

v.

FIRST CAPITAL DEVELOPMENT LLC,

License No. ROC 338200,

RESPONDENT

No. 2025A-05159-CHC-ROC

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION

HEARING: February 19, 2026.

APPEARANCES:

Complainant: Grace Kocur

Respondent: Mike Manone

Registrar of Contractors: James Dimond, 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

First Capital Development, LLC (Respondent) was the holder of License No. 338200 issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (Registrar) on May 13, 2022.

On or about May 24, 2022, Grace Kocur (Complainant) entered into a contract with Respondent for a home remodel.

On or about May 26, 2025, Complainant filed a Licensed Complaint Form with the Registrar, claiming abandonment and poor work.

The Registrar assigned the complaint to Investigator James Dimond, who issued a Jobsite Inspection Notice on May 27, 2025, scheduling the inspection for June 11, 2025.

After rescheduling twice due to parties’ scheduling conflicts, Investigator Dimond conducted the jobsite inspection on July 25, 2025, and Respondent was present. Following the inspection, Investigator Dimond issued a Written Directive From the Registrar to Respondent on September 12, 2025, that provided as follows:

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

Complaint Item: 1 - Garage opening is 9x8 and will need to be framed correctly to 8x8 as per blueprint plan as well as stucco finishes.

Investigator’s Observation: The complainant relayed that the door opening is incorrect. The respondent is to ensure that the garage opening is in accordance with the approved plans. Any deviations from the plan will require an agreed upon signed change order and approved revisions to the plan.

Complaint Item: 2 - Catch basin downspout culvert pipe to be added at garage side in front.

Investigator’s Observation: The respondent is to ensure that water expels away from the home as required. The down spout expels the water right at the foundation. The respondent is to correct this condition in an appropriate manner.

Complaint Item: 3 - Drywall was done before raised cover plate installed, so each electrical outlet needs covering and also bathroom wall.

Investigator’s Observation: The drywall work is not completed yet and is scheduled for 8/2. The respondent is to correct the condition in an appropriate manner.

Complaint Item: 4 - Primer coat the complete interior and garage.

Investigator’s Observation: At the time of inspection this had not been accomplished. The respondent agreed to complete that work on 8/2 The respondent is to correct the condition in an appropriate manner.

Complaint Item: 5 - Electrical finals: interior and exterior as well as connecting Spa and Fireplace outlet at left.

Investigator’s Observation: Trim out of the electrical has not occurred yet. The respondent is to correct the condition in an appropriate manner..

Complaint Item: 6 - Bathroom floor tile to be redone with proper cork, electric mat, thinset to cover wire and final 6x6 Hex tile applied

Investigator’s Observation: The tile work was in progress at the time of the inspection. The respondent is to complete the work in an appropriate manner.

Complaint Item: 7 - Plumbing INSTALLATION kitchen: sink, dishwasher, range propane, bathroom: sink, shower, toilet. Tankless water heater.

Investigator’s Observation: The home is not at the point of completion to install these items. The respondent agreed to perform the plumbing trim out 7/30 The respondent is to correct the condition in an appropriate manner.

Complaint Item: 9 - Septic cover cap lid.

Investigator’s Observation: At the time of inspection, a concrete paver has been substituted for an appropriate lid. The respondent is to correct the condition in an appropriate manner.

Complaint Item: 10 - Primed and painted doors and base trim with TrimTex.

Investigator’s Observation: The trim is on order as it is not a standard trim. It is in Phoenix and just needs picked up and paid for. The respondent agreed to complete the base on 8/4 The respondent is to complete the work in an appropriate manner.

Complaint Item: 11 - Closets to be covered in cedar with hanging bars and shelfs. Transition thresholds to be made at bed 1&2 & kitchen

Investigator’s Observation: The cedar is installed but the rods are not. The respondent is to correct the condition in an appropriate manner.

Complaint Item: 12 - Cabinets missing doors and hardware to be installed. Under kitchen sink the outlet for dishwasher needs to be exposed.

Investigator’s Observation: The cabinets are installed but several of the doors are missing. The respondent is to correct the condition in an appropriate manner.

Complaint Item: 14 - Plumbing: coconut water filtration to be added as planned.

Investigator’s Observation: The plumbing system has not been trimmed out as of yet. This product gets installed at trim out. The respondent is to complete the installation in an appropriate manner.

Complaint Item: 16 - Moving Appliances and INSTALLATION: range, vent hood, refrigerator, dishwasher, wash/dry tower, and toilet.

Investigator’s Observation: At the time of inspection, the home was not ready for appliances. The parties came up with a schedule at the inspection that should have the project significantly completed.

The Written Directive required Respondent to notify Investigator Dimond of Respondent’s compliance with the directive prior to 5:00 p.m. on October 2, 2025.

After the compliance period expired, Investigator Dimond visited the worksite and observed that no corrective work had been performed on the project.

On October 21, 2025, the Registrar issued a Citation against Respondent, finding cause to charge Respondent with violations of Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) § 32-1154(A)(2)(a); § 32-1154(A)(3), namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(A); § 32-1154(A)(22).

Respondent submitted an Answer to the Citation on October 23, 2025. Respondent’s Answer asserted that Complainant had coordinated completion of numerous items directly with outside contractors, made numerous changes to the project, and had not paid subcontractors who now refused to work.

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

On November 18, 2025, the Registrar issued a Notice of Hearing on Contested Case setting the hearing for December 23, 2025.

At the time set for hearing, Respondent appeared. Although Complainant attempted to appear, she encountered difficulties. The Administrative Law Judge advised the parties the hearing would be continued.

On or about December 29, 2025, the parties were notified the hearing was continued to February 19, 2026. The order granting the continuance from the Office of Administrative Hearings advised the parties of how to connect to the hearing via Google Meet.

The hearing was held via Google Meet on February 19, 2026.

Investigator Dimond testified in support of his jobsite inspection findings, the written directive, compliance inspection findings, and the Citation. Specifically, at the jobsite inspection Respondent verbally agreed to a schedule of completion of some Complaint items, and Investigator Dimond referenced those dates in the Written Directive. After the inspection, however, there was no communication from Respondent.

Complainant testified in support of Investigator Dimond’s findings and testimony.

Mr. Manone testified, on behalf of Respondent, that Chris Crane ran the business and Mr. Manone was the Qualifying Party. He stated he understood that Mr. Crane had “bailed” on Complainant and that Rosales Construction, who was working initially as a subcontractor for Respondent, was taking over to work directly with Complainant to finish the project. Mr. Manone stated that Mr. Crane caused the loss of the license due to a number of complaints on other projects.

Administrative notice was taken of Respondent’s prior License record on March 20, 2026. According to that record, Respondent’s License No. 338200 was Revoked; and there was one open complaint (instant matter), one disciplined case, and no resolved/settled complaints against Respondent’s license.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

This matter lies within the Registrar’s jurisdiction.

Respondent’s revoked license does not deprive Complainant of the right to prosecute the complaint or prevent the Registrar from determining the merits of the complaint.

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 departed from or disregarded plans or specifications in violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(2)(a), specifically regarding Complaint item 1.

The preponderance of the evidence established that Respondent departed from or disregarded a building code in violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(2)(b), specifically regarding Complaint item 1.

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), specifically regarding Complaint items 2-7, 9-12, 14, and 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 revoke Respondent’s License No. 338200.

It is further recommended that the Registrar require Respondent to pay the sum of $500.00 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, March 20, 2026.

/s/ Nedra-Su Kawasaki

Administrative Law Judge

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

Tom Cole, Director

Registrar of Contractors

FIRST CAPITAL DEVELOPMENT LLC

[email redacted]

[email redacted]

Grace Kv

[email redacted]

Jim Dimond, Investigator

Registrar of Contractors

[email redacted]

By: OAH Staff