ALJDEC - Licensing

2025A-05882-NPC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2025-11-03

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

Connie Plemmons,

COMPLAINANT,

v.

MASCO & SONS TOO, LLC

License No. ROC 333480,

RESPONDENT.

No. 2025A-05882-NPC-ROC

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION

HEARING: October 28, 2025 at 3:00pm

APPEARANCES: Complainant Connie Plemmons appeared on her own behalf. No one appeared on behalf of Respondent Masco & Sons Too, LLC.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Nicole Robinson

EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: Registrar of Contractors Notice of Hearing Packet (“Packet”).

FINDINGS OF FACT

Masco & Sons Too, LLC (“Respondent”) is the holder of License No. ROC 333480 issued by the Registrar of Contractors (“Registrar”).

Connie Plemmons (“Complainant”) is a supplier of mini-split air conditioning units which are small ductless AC units that can be zoned in individual rooms.

On April 8, 2025, Complainant sold Respondent five (5) 34K SAJA NG mini-split units in the total amount of $10,000.00.

On April 16, 2025, Complainant sold Respondent two (2) 24K SAJA NG and one (1) 34K SAJA NG mini-splits in the total amount of $4,900.00.

Complainant invoiced Respondent. Respondent provided Complainant with two separate checks totaling $14,900.00 for the inventory. Before cashing the checks, Respondent requested Complainant to not cash the checks because they prefer to pay in cash. Complainant waited weeks, never received cash from Respondent, and finally deposited the two checks. However, Bank did not cash the checks because the drafts received were drawn on a closed account.

On or about June 13, 2025, Complainant filed a Complaint against Respondent with the Registrar alleging that Respondent had failed to pay Complainant the sum of $14,900.00 for the supply of mini-split AC units.

The parties were unable to resolve their differences, and Complainant requested an administrative hearing. On July 24, 2025, the Registrar then issued a Citation for Alleged Violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(10).

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

The Registrar issued a Notice of Hearing, setting a hearing at 10:30am on September 29, 2025. The Registrar mailed copies of the Notice of Hearing to Respondent at its address and email address of record.

The September 29, 2025 hearing was postponed and rescheduled. On October 6, 2025, an order was emailed from the Office of Administrative Hearings to the parties which advised them on how to connect to the hearing via Google Meet. The hearing was held via Google Meet on October 28, 2025 at 3:00pm.

Respondent did not request that the hearing be continued. Although the start of the hearing was delayed 15 minutes, Respondent did not appear through an authorized member, employee, or attorney. Consequently, Respondent did not present any evidence to defend its license.

Hearing Evidence

Complainant testified that she tried on numerous occasions to retrieve the money that was owed. Complainant further testified that there was a lot of back and forth communication between Respondent and Complainant but to no avail.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

The Notice of Hearing that the Registrar mailed to Respondent at its address and email address of record was reasonable, and Respondent is deemed to have received notice of the hearing.

The burden of proof at an administrative hearing falls to the party asserting a claim, right, or entitlement and the standard of proof on all issues in these matters is 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.”

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(10) includes among the grounds for suspension, revocation, or other disciplinary action against a contractor’s license,

[f]ailure by a licensee or agent or official of a licensee to pay monies in excess of $750 when due for materials or services rendered in connection with the licensee's operations as a contractor unless the licensee proves that the licensee lacks the capacity to pay and has not received sufficient monies as payment for the particular construction work project or operation for which the services or materials were rendered or purchased.

The purpose of the Registrar’s licensing statutes is to protect the public from unscrupulous, unqualified, and financially irresponsible contractors.

The preponderance of the evidence shows that Respondent owed Complainant more than $750.00 for materials/services provided in connection with Respondent’s operations as a contractor.

The evidence established that Respondent owed a total of $14,900.00 for delivery of multiple multi-split units that were received and Complainant was not paid.

Respondent failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that it lacked the ability to pay Complainant for the work performed.

Therefore, Complainant established that Respondent violated Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(10) by failing to pay Complainant $14,900.00 for services or materials rendered in connection with Respondent’s contracting business.

Hence, Respondent’s license should be suspended until it pays to Complainant $14,900.00. Based upon Respondent’s violation of the provisions of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(10), grounds exist to impose discipline against Respondent’s license.

RECOMMENDed order

Based on the foregoing,

It is recommended that the Registrar suspend Respondent’s License No. ROC 333480 issued by the Registrar until it has provided to the Registrar, and the Registrar has accepted, documents that establish that it has paid Complainant $14,900.00 in certified funds.

It is further recommended that when and if the Registrar receives and accepts Respondent’s evidence that it has paid Complainant $14,900.00 in certified funds, the Registrar may close the Complaint in Case No. 2025-05882.

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, November 3, 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]

MASCO & SONS TOO, LLC

3383 Sunbeam Dr.

Bullhead City, AZ 86429

[email redacted]

Connie Plemmons

16955 S Lone Ranger Rd, 42

Yucca, AZ 86438

[email redacted]

By: OAH Staff