ALJDEC - Licensing

2025A-05977-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2025-10-06

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

Patricia Kirk,

COMPLAINANT,

v.

Air Pro Heating & Cooling, LLC

License No. ROC 341591,

RESPONDENT.

No. 2025A-05977-CHC-ROC

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION

HEARING: September 25, 2025

APPEARANCES: Complainant Patricia Kirk appeared on her own behalf. Eduardo Marquez appeared on behalf of Respondent Air Pro Heating & Cooling, LLC. Arizona Registrar of Contractors Investigator Steven Avila appeared as a witness.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Sondra J. Vanella

EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: Administrative Notice taken of Agency Record; Complainant Patricia Kirk’s Exhibits A-G

FINDINGS OF FACT

Air Pro Heating & Colling, LLC (“Respondent”) is the holder of License Number 341591 issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (“Registrar”). Eduardo Marquez is Respondent’s Qualifying Party and sole Member.

On or about December 10, 2024, Patricia Kirk (“Complainant”) contracted with Respondent for Respondent to install two air conditioning units at Complainant’s home, with an installation date of December 26, 2024. The contract price was $12,400.00. Complainant paid Respondent in full.

On or about June 16, 2025, the Registrar received a Complaint against Respondent from Complainant alleging abandonment of the project.

The Registrar assigned the Complaint to Investigator Steven Avila. Investigator Avila conducted a Jobsite Inspection on July 10, 2025. Respondent did not attend the Jobsite Inspection. Investigator Avila issued a Written Directive to Respondent dated July 10, 2025, 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 Friday, July 25, 2025.

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

Complaint Item: 1 - Air Pro was hired to install two HVAC systems that I paid for but never received.

Investigator’s Observation: At the time of the inspection there were no new air conditioning units installed. The two units present were old and weathered units and no evidence of any work by the respondent was present. A previous complaint was filed and dismissed due to the expected installation date of 6/14/2025 of the two units. The units were not installed on this date and to date no work has been performed.

Allegation is verified.

Respondent shall complete project per original contract agreement, properly executed change orders, verbal agreements, local building codes and manufacturers installation instructions.

On July 28, 2025, Investigator Avila ascertained from Complainant that no work had been performed by Respondent. Consequently, Investigator Avila forwarded the matter to the Registrar’s Legal Department. The Registrar issued a Citation against Respondent charging possible violations of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(1) and A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22).

Respondent filed a timely Answer to the Citation and the Registrar referred the matter to the Office of Administrative Hearings, an independent State agency, for an evidentiary hearing.

Investigator Avila testified consistently with his findings contained in the Written Directive. Investigator Avila testified that Complainant initially filed a complaint with the Registrar on May 4, 2025, resulting in a May 20, 2005 Jobsite Inspection. At that Jobsite Inspection, Investigator Avila observed that the air conditioning units had not been installed. However, Complainant informed him that the parties had agreed to an installation date of June 14, 2025. Therefore, that complaint was dismissed, and Investigator Avila advised Complainant that she could file another Complaint should further issues arise.

The instant Complaint was filed on June 16, 2025, two days after the subsequently agreed upon installation date. Investigator Avila testified that Complainant had contacted her bank who put a hold on the charge, which was eventually released back to Respondent after the parties’ agreement for a June 14, 2025 installation.

Complainant testified that Respondent had provided her a $500.00 credit in January 2025, due to the delay in installation. Complainant explained that she had filed a dispute with her bank due to Respondent’s failure to install the units, and was provided with a provisional credit. However, Complainant’s bank subsequently reversed the claim credit.

Complainant called Respondent daily from May 13, 2025 through June 13, 2025, in order to schedule the installation which was ultimately scheduled for June 14, 2025. Respondent did not perform the installation as agreed and did not communicate with Complainant.

Eduardo Marquez testified on behalf of Respondent. Mr. Marquez testified that Complainant received back all monies paid and that nothing is due to her. However, Mr. Marquez did not provide any documentation establishing, as an affirmative defense, that the monies paid to Respondent were recouped from Complainant’s bank. Mr. Marquez asserted that every time Respondent agreed to perform the installation, Complainant filed a dispute with her bank, and that is why the project has yet to be completed.

Administrative notice is taken of Respondent’s prior License record on October 2, 2025. Such prior License record reflects that Respondent’s License Number 341591 was first issued on November 4, 2022, and is active. Such prior License record also reflects that there are seven (7) open complaints, including the instant Complaint, no resolved/settled complaints, and 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 violation(s) 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 evidence established that Respondent abandoned its contract with Complainant without legal excuse for doing so. Therefore, Complainant established that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(1).

The evidence established that Respondent did not comply with the Written Directive. Further, Respondent failed to establish any affirmative defense to establish valid justification for such failure. Therefore, Complainant 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).

A.R.S. § 32-1156.01(A) provides, “[a]fter a hearing pursuant to this article, an administrative law judge may recommend that a licensee provide restitution to any person who is injured or whose property is damaged by an action of the licensee.”

The Administrative Law Judge finds that the appropriate discipline in this matter is a provisional suspension of Respondent’s license until it refunds to Complainant the amount Complainant paid to Respondent for the installation of two air conditioning units, minus the $500.00 credit Complainant received from Respondent.

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Based on the foregoing, it is recommended that the Registrar suspend Respondent’s License Number 341591 issued by the Registrar until either: i) it has provided to the Registrar, and the Registrar has accepted documents that establish that it has paid Complainant $11,900.00 in certified funds; or ii) Respondent can provide sufficient proof to the Registrar that Complainant’s lending institution(s) has recouped the monies Complainant paid to Respondent.

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).

It is further recommended that if Respondent fails to pay the entire amount of the civil penalty on or before thirty (30) 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 A.R.S. § 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, October 6, 2025.

/s/ Sondra J. Vanella

Administrative Law Judge

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

Tom Cole, Director

Registrar of Contractors

Steven Avila

[email redacted]

Air Pro Heating & Cooling, LLC

[email redacted]

Patricia Kirk

[email redacted]

By: OAH Staff