ALJDEC - Licensing

2025A-05807-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2025-10-14

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

Kayla Garcia,

COMPLAINANT,

v.

BSN Construction LLC

License No. ROC 331806,

RESPONDENT.

No. 2025A-05807-CHC-ROC

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION

HEARING: September 24, 2025 at 1:00pm

APPEARANCES: Complainant Kayla Garcia appeared on her own behalf. Thomas Dobczyk appeared on behalf of Respondent BSN Construction, LLC. Investigator James Carter 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 Exhibits 1 through 13.

FINDINGS OF FACT

BSN Construction, LLC (“Respondent”) is the holder of License No. ROC 331806 issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (“Registrar”). Respondent’s license was a KB-2 Dual Residential and Small Commercial license.

On or about October 3, 2024, Kayla Garcia (“Complainant”) entered into a contract with Respondent for, among other things, a new septic tank installation at her home residence located in Waddell, Arizona. The property sits on two acres and Complainant shares the home with her husband and two young children.

The total amount of the project was $22,900.00 and Complainant paid Respondent the entire amount in full. The contract did not include an estimated date of completion and did not inform Complainant of her rights in regard to the Registrar.

Due to mandatory permits and many delays, work began on the project in April 2025.

On June 11, 2025, the Registrar received a Complaint against Respondent from Complainant alleging poor work and abandonment with respect to the project.

The Registrar assigned the complaint to Investigator James Carter. Investigator Carter conducted a jobsite inspection on June 26, 2025.

On June 30, 2025, Investigator Carter 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 Monday, July 21, 2025.

. . . .

DIRECTIVE REQUIREMENTS

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

Complaint Item: 1 - piping to septic leaking even after fixing

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. There is a pipe leaking leading up to the septic tank. Pipes do not appeared to be supported in anyway. The Respondent will need to correct this issue by the appropriate means. Since the Respondent is no longer licensed to do this work, the appropriate means will be the two parties coming to a resolution to have an appropriately licensed contractor complete the corrective work.

. . . .

Complaint Item: 2 - did not protect work during rain causing tank seepage

pit to gather water and cause tank to become unlevel

Investigator’s Observation: There is evidence of run off into the areas dug out for the septic tank. The Respondent will need to correct this issue by the appropriate means. Since the Respondent is no longer licensed to do this work, the appropriate means will be the two parties coming to a resolution to have an appropriately licensed contractor complete the corrective work.

. . . .

Complaint Item: 3 - incorrectly advised that we could begin using tank due to delays which likely also contributed to leveling issue

Investigator’s Observation: Documentation received shows text messages or emails between parties advising the lines were ok to use for clean water drainage. Respondent advised he would come on pump the tanks for Complainant. The Respondent will need to correct this issue by the appropriate means. Since the Respondent is no longer licensed to do this work, the appropriate means will be the two parties coming to a resolution to have an appropriately licensed contractor complete the corrective work.

. . . .

Complaint Item: 4 - performed work on irrigation ditch without relaying information to environmental company he was working with

Investigator’s Observation: Documents provided show correspondence between Respondent and his subcontractor digging the project showed that the irrigation ditch was not on the plans. The Respondent will need to correct this issue by the appropriate means. Since the Respondent is no longer licensed to do this work, the appropriate means will be the two parties coming to a resolution to have an appropriately licensed contractor complete the corrective work.

. . . .

Complaint Item: 5 - pumped tank of liquid down irrigation trench possibly contributing to destabilization

Investigator’s Observation: Documents provided show correspondents from Respondents subcontractor advising that liquids had been pumped into the irrigation ditch. The Respondent will need to correct this issue by the appropriate means. Since the Respondent is no longer licensed to do this work, the appropriate means will be the two parties coming to a resolution to have an appropriately licensed contractor complete the corrective work.

. . . .

Complaint Item: 6 - left back field unlevel and sinking in areas where he had discarded debris into a pit- unsafe

Investigator’s Observation: Correspondents between Complainant and Respondent show that an agreement was made between the parties to level out the back field of the property. The field is currently unlevel with large mounds and unstable ground. The Respondent will need to correct this issue by the appropriate means. Since the Respondent is no longer licensed to do this work, the appropriate means will be the two parties coming to a resolution to have an appropriately licensed contractor complete the corrective work.

. . . .

Complaint Item: 8 - continued to work project after ROC suspended license and did not advise

Investigator’s Observation: Respondents license was suspended on 01/01/2025. While the contract for work was entered into prior to this work did not begin until on or about April of 2025. The Respondent will need to correct this issue by the appropriate means. Since the Respondent is no longer licensed to do this work, the appropriate means will be the two parties coming to a resolution to have an appropriately licensed contractor complete the corrective work.

. . . .

(All errors in original.)

After the deadline in the directive expired, Investigator Carter was notified that no corrective work had been performed. A compliance inspection was not necessary, however, Investigator Carter drafted Compliance Notes on June 26, 2025, that stated, in relevant part, as follows:

Compliance Jobsite General Notes: No Compliance Inspection held due to both parties informing me that no work was done. Respondent emailed me on 07/18/2025 to tell me that he is no longer the Qualify Party for BSN and that he was unaware that their Licensed had been suspened so he could not do any work under that licenses and Complainant emailed me on 07/22/2025 and advised me that no work had been done and no attempt to even contact them.

. . . .

(All errors in original.)

On June 30, 2025, Investigator Carter also issued a Warning Letter to Respondent. The warning letter stated, in relevant part, as follows:

It appears that you have violated A.R.S. § 32-1158(A). Under that statute, any contract for more than $1,000.00 between a contractor and a property owner must contain nine specific elements. Your contract is missing at least one of the required elements . . . [per] A.R.S. § 32-1158(A).

On July 24, 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); Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(12) - Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1158; Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(17); and Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(22).

Hearing Evidence

Investigator Carter testified that during the time of his investigation he became aware that Respondent’s license was suspended back in January 2025. Investigator Carter testified that Thomas Dobczyk was still listed as Respondent’s Qualifying Party as of July 21, 2025, and was responsible for the work. Investigator Carter testified that because Respondent’s license was suspended, Mr. Dobczyk could not perform the work and an appropriately licensed contractor needed to complete the corrective work.

Mr. Dobczyk testified on behalf of Respondent. Mr. Dobczyk stated that he was in a lawsuit with the primary owner of Respondent Company and did not realize that the license was suspended. Mr. Dobczyk testified that he only found out in late April 2025 that the license was suspended since January 2025, and that he informed Complainant in April or May 2025 to the status of the license. Mr. Dobczyk admitted that he continued to work on the project after he became aware that Respondent’s license had been suspended.

Complainant testified that on June 11, 2025, she was informed that Respondent would not come back to finish the project because his license was suspended. Complainant testified that she had an open pit on her property for approximately three months which was dangerous especially with two young children while work stood at a standstill. Complainant testified to the necessity of a working septic system and she immediately hired someone sometime after the Citation was issued. Complainant paid a licensed contractor $4,800.00 plus $2,700.00 to irrigate the pipes and then the tank passed inspection.

Administrative notice is taken of Respondent’s prior License record on September 24, 2025. Such prior License record reflects that Respondent’s License No. ROC 331806 was first issued on December 30, 2020, and was suspended, as a result of a bond cancellation. Such prior License record also reflects that there were no complaints 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.”

Although, the evidence established that Respondent’s work was not in conformity with the Registrar’s standards, the primary issue was Respondent did not have a valid license at the time it performed work. However, Complainant did establish 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).

The evidence established clearly that Respondent’s contract failed to include two required elements of a contract set forth in Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1158(A). Therefore, Complainant established that Respondent failed to comply with the Registrar’s statute in violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(12).

Mr. Dobczyk argued that Complainant was aware that Respondent’s license was suspended in either April or May 2025. However, regardless of when Complainant became aware of the suspended license, Mr. Dobczyk worked while Respondent’s license was suspended which was his sole responsibility. As such, the evidence established that Respondent contracted while the license was under suspension which was a violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(17).

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).

Lastly, Respondent’s suspended license does not deprive Complainants of their right to prosecute their complaint or prevent the Registrar from determining the merits of the complaint.

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 331806 for a period of five days.

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

It is further recommended that, on or before thirty (30) days after the effective date of the final order, Respondent shall provide a sample contract to the Registrar to demonstrate that it has amended its contracts to include the nine terms required by Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1158(A). If Respondent fails to establish to the Registrar that it has brought its contracts into compliance with Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1158(A) within thirty days, its contractor’s license shall be suspended until it demonstrates that it has done so.

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, October 14, 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]

BSN Construction LLC

13119 N 104th Place

Scottsdale, AZ 85260

[email redacted]

James Carter

[email redacted]

Kayla Garcia

7720 N Citrus Rd

Waddell, AZ 85355

[email redacted]

By: OAH Staff