ALJDEC - Licensing
2025A-05627-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2026-03-31
IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
Laura Chavez
COMPLAINANT
v.
LHH/Amarillas Bros Construction LLC
DBA: QFI Construction,
License No. ROC 323310,
RESPONDENT
No. 2025A-05627-CHC-ROC
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
DECISION
HEARING: October 15, 2025 and March 11, 2026
APPEARANCES: Laura Chavez appeared on behalf of herself. Stephen Amarillas appeared on behalf of LHH/Amarillas Bros Construction, LLC DBA: QFI Construction (LHH).
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Nedra Su-Kawasaki presided over the hearing on October 15, 2025. Velva Moses-Thompson presided over the hearing on March 11, 2026 and issues the Administrative Law Judge Decision.
EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: Exhibit A: The Hearing Packet submitted by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (Registrar).
_____________________________________________________________________
FINDINGS OF FACT
On September 8, 2025, the Registrar mailed a Notice of Hearing
setting the above-matter for hearing on October 15, 2025 at 9:00 a.m.
A hearing convened at approximately 9:00 a.m. on October 15, 2025.
After approximately 25 minutes, the parties agreed to set the mater for a status update to allow David Cooke, the assigned investigator from the Registrar (Investigator Cooke), time to perform an inspection of additional work performed by LHH.
The hearing was later reset for January 7, 2026.
The hearing was continued and reset for hearing on March 11, 2026.
5. A hearing was held on March 11, 2026.
6. At the hearing on October 15, 2025, Ms. Chavez testified on behalf of herself. LHH’s qualifying party, Stephen Amarillas, testified on behalf of LHH. Investigator Cooke testified regarding his investigation of the complaint. Mr. Amarillas asked Investigator Cooke questions.
7. At the hearing on March 11, 2026, Ms. Chavez testified on behalf of herself. Mr. Amarillas testified on behalf of LHH. Investigator Cooke testified regarding his investigation of the complaint.
8. On or about February 15, 2025, LHH agreed to perform remodeling work at Ms. Chavez’s residence, for the amount of $8,680.00.
9. On or about February 27, 2025, LHH started work.
10. On or about June 9, 2025, LHH stopped work.
11. On or about June 9, 2025, the Registrar received a complaint from
Ms. Chavez alleging poor workmanship on the part of LHH.
12. On or about July 7, 2025, Investigator Cooke conducted a job-site inspection.
13. On July 7, 2025, the Registrar issued a Directive to LHH requiring that LHH correct Complaint Items 1, 7, 8, 9, and 10, by appropriate means, no later than July 25, 2025. The Directive provided, in relevant part, as follows:
.................................................................
You are directed to remedy the following violations by the appropriate means:
Complaint Item: 1 - Roof repair, sagging, not corrected.
Investigator’s Observation: The complainant showed a visible sag in the roof that was apparent from the road below. As a general principle in construction, a subcontractor who performs work on top of a surface prepared by another accepts the surface. The subcontractor should have inspected the surface for any flaws or defects that would affect the work he proposes before performing the work. If he found the surface to be unacceptable, he should have called any defects to the owner’s or general contractor’s attention so that the owner can choose whether to pay for the defective surface to be corrected or if the owner is not willing to pay to correct the surface, the contractor may obtain an explicit warranty disclaimer. The respondent shall correct by appropriate means.
Governing Rule: Violation of any rule adopted by the Registrar; Namely
A.A.C. R4-9-108(a): A contractor shall perform all work in a professional and
workmanlike manner.
A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) - R4-9-108(A) Workmanship
Complaint Item: 7 - Edging
Investigator’s Observation: Poorly cut and misaligned drip edging was
shown along the houses perimeter. Along the back of the home, the shingles
were shown to be overhanging the roof line by approximately 1/2". This was
visible from the ground. The respondent shall correct these items and any
items that exhibit similarities by appropriate means.
Governing Rule: Violation of any rule adopted by the Registrar; Namely
A.A.C. R4-9-108(a): A contractor shall perform all work in a professional and
workmanlike manner.
A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) - R4-9-108(A) Workmanship
Complaint Item: 8 - , exhaust falling,
Investigator’s Observation: A leaning exhaust vent was shown, from the
ground, on the roof near the cooler. The complainant claims that there has
been multiple attempts to fix this item. The respondent shall correct by
appropriate means.
Governing Rule: Violation of any rule adopted by the Registrar; Namely
A.A.C. R4-9-108(a): A contractor shall perform all work in a professional and
workmanlike manner.
A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) - R4-9-108(A) Workmanship
Complaint Item: 9 - cracked board painted over
Investigator’s Observation: The complainant showed a fascia board along
the south side of the house. The fascia board had visually evident damage that
had been attempted to be repaired and then painted over. The respondent shall
correct by appropriate means.
Governing Rule: Violation of any rule adopted by the Registrar; Namely
A.A.C. R4-9-108(a): A contractor shall perform all work in a professional and
workmanlike manner.
A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) - R4-9-108(A) Workmanship
Complaint Item: 10 - wires hanging
Investigator’s Observation: Approximately (3) wires were show to be
hanging from the side of the house. These were, likely, communication cables
that were assumed to be attached to the roof line prior to reconstruction. These
cables were still attached to a hanging piece of 2x4 that was painted the same
color as the house. The respondent shall correct by appropriate means.
Governing Rule: Violation of any rule adopted by the Registrar; Namely
A.A.C. R4-9-108(a): A contractor shall perform all work in a professional and
workmanlike manner.
A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) - R4-9-108(A) Workmanship
.................................................................
14. On July 25, 2025, Investigator Cooke extended the deadline to comply with the Directive to August 8, 2025, at the request of Mr. Amarillas and with
Ms. Chavez’s consent.
15. On August 11, 2025, Ms. Chavez notified Investigator Cooke by e-mail that no work had been completed.
16. On August 12, 2026, the Registrar issued a Citation against
Respondent’s license alleging that Respondent had violated Ariz. Rev. Stat. section 32-1154(A)(3) - Ariz. Admin. Code R4-9-108(A); Ariz. Rev. Stat. section 32-1154(A)(22).
17. LHH filed a timely answer to the Citation.
18. The matter was subsequently referred to the Office of Administrative
Hearings (OAH) for an evidentiary hearing.
19. At the hearing on October 15, 2025 and March 11, 2026, Investigator Cooke testified regarding his investigation of the complaint. Investigator Cooke testified consistently with his job-site inspection notes.
20. At the hearing on March 11, 2026, Investigator Cooke also explained that on the day of the first hearing setting, October 15, 2025, Mr. Amarillas sent Ms. Chavez photos of additional work that LHH performed during the week before the hearing on October 15, 2025. Investigator Cooke conducted a job-site inspection on October 23, 2025, but failed to document his observations. Investigator Cooke conducted an additional pre-hearing inspection on January 7, 2026 before the second hearing setting. On January 7, 2026, Investigator Cooke noticed that the roof was still sagging and the fascia boards had not been adequately repaired. It appeared to Investigator Cooke that LHH applied Bondo. Investigator Cooke also observed leaking as it was raining on January 7, 2026. Investigator Cooke observed that wires were hanging in the walkthrough between the home and the garage.
21. At the hearing on October 15, 2025 and March 11, 2026, Ms. Chavez explained that LHH performed poor work during the construction project and failed to appropriately correct the Directive items. Ms. Chavez agreed with Investigator Cooke’s findings and explained that wires were still hanging on her property.
22. Mr. Amarillas asserted that he repaired all Directive items. However,
Mr. Amarillas admitted that he used Bondo in his repair.
23. Administrative notice is taken of Respondent’s prior License record as
reflected on the Registrar’s public website on March 31, 2026. Such prior License record reflects LHH’s License No. ROC 323310 and is currently active. Such prior License record also shows that there are four open complaints against LHH’s license.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
This matter lies within the Registrar’s jurisdiction. See Ariz. Rev. Stat.
sections 32-1101 et seq.
Ms. Chavez bears the burden of proof to establish Respondent’s statutory
violation by a preponderance of the evidence. See Ariz. Rev. Stat. section
41-1092.07(G)(2); A.A.C. R2-19-119(A) and A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1); see also Vazanno v. Superior Court, 74 Ariz. 369, 372, 249 P.2d 837 (1952). “A preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.” Morris K. Udall, Arizona Law of Evidence § 5 (1960)
3. The Administrative Law Judge may consider Registrar’s administrative
record. See Ariz. Admin. Code section R4-9-118.
4. The preponderance of the evidence shows that LHH’s work failed
to meet minimum workmanship standards, which is a violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. section 32-1154(A)(3), namely Ariz. Admin. Code. R4-9-108(A).
The preponderance of the evidence shows that LHH failed to correct the
Directive items without valid justification, which is a violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. section 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 license number 323310 held by LHH/Amarillas Bros Construction LLC DBA: QFI Construction, for three days.
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. section 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. section 32-1101(A)(7), unless Respondent tenders payment of any outstanding prior civil penalty.
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 31, 2026.
/s/ Velva Moses-Thompson
Administrative Law Judge
Transmitted by either mail, e-mail, or facsimile to:
Tom Cole, Director
Registrar of Contractors
Laura Chavez
[email redacted]
LHH/Amarillas Bros Construction LLC
DBA: QFI Construction,
[email redacted]
By: OAH Staff