ALJDEC - Licensing

2025A-06003-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2025-09-29

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

Ricardo I Enwiya,

COMPLAINANT,

v.

Air Pro Heating & Cooling LLC,

ROC License No. 341591,

RESPONDENT.

No. 2025A-06003-CHC-ROC

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION

HEARING: September 22, 2025 at 9:00 AM.

APPEARANCES: Ricardo Enwiya (“Complainant”) appeared on his own behalf. No appearance(s) by or on behalf of Air Pro Heating & Cooling LLC (“Respondent”). Todd Anderson appeared on behalf of the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (“Registrar”). Randa Isaac served as an Arabic language interpreter.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Jenna Clark.

EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: The Notice of Hearing on Contested Case (“Notice of Hearing”), including the Registrar’s attached administrative file, the Amended Notice of Hearing on Contested Case (“Amended Notice of Hearing”), Complainant Exhibit 1, and Minute Entry – Granting Continuance dated September 09, 2025, were admitted into the evidentiary record.

_____________________________________________________________________

After review of the hearing record in this matter, the undersigned Administrative Law Judge makes the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, and issues this Recommended Order to the Director of the Registrar.

FINDINGS OF FACT

Background and Procedure

Pursuant to Arizona Administrative Code (“Ariz. Admin. Code”) R4-9-117, Administrative Notice is taken of Respondent’s prior license record as reflected on the Registrar’s public website. On November 04, 2022, the Registrar issued ROC License No. 341591 Specialty Dual CR-39 Air Conditioning and Refrigeration contracting license to Respondent. The license is renewed through November 30, 2026. Eduardo Marquez is listed as the Qualifying Party and Member on the license. Respondent’s address of record for the license was 2816 E. Jones Ave. Phoenix, Arizona 85040. Respondent has an active $6,750.00 surety bond on the license issued by RLI Insurance Company, effective November 02, 2022. The license has no prior disciplinary record, save seven (7) open complaints against it; one of which is presumed to be related to this matter.

On June 17, 2025, the Registrar received a brief narrative complaint from Complainant against ROC License No. 338918 that essentially alleged poor work of an HVAC installation project at Complainant’s residence. The Registrar designated it Complaint No. 2025-06003 and assigned to Todd Anderson (“Investigator Anderson”) for investigation.

On June 17, 2025, Investigator Anderson issued a Jobsite Inspection Notification Letter to the parties, advising that he would conduct an inspection of the project on June 18, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. Correspondence was not returned as undeliverable to Respondent.

On June 18, 2025, Investigator Anderson inspected the work that had been performed on the project to date. Respondent was not present. Investigator Anderson also reviewed the contract-related correspondence between the parties, and took 4 photographs of the project site. When he was finished, Investigator Anderson drafted his Inspection Notes. Ultimately, Investigator Anderson derived a single complaint item from Complaint No. 2025-06003, which he substantiated based on his firsthand observations. Specifically, Investigator Anderson determined that Respondent accepted $2,800.00 from Complainant as a 50% down payment on $5,600.00 for the delivery and installation of a new air-conditioning unit. Investigator Anderson also determined that Respondent’s conduct constituted a refusal to perform sans legal excuse.

On June 18, 2025, Investigator Anderson issued a Written Directive from the Registrar (“Directive”) to Respondent because he substantiated Complainant’s complaint allegation(s) against Respondent. Respondent was put on notice that it had until 5:00 p.m. on July 04, 2025, to notify the Registrar of its compliance with the Directive or face discipline pursuant to Ariz. Rev. Stat. §§ 32-1154(A) and 32-1154(E). Correspondence was not returned as undeliverable to Respondent.

On July 10, 2025, Investigator Anderson forwarded the matter to the Registrar’s legal department with the issuance of a Citation Recommendation.

On July 14, 2025, the Registrar issued a Citation to Respondent for alleged violations of Ariz. Rev. Stat. §§ 32-1154(A)(1) and 32-1154(A)(22). Respondent was given until July 29, 2025, to respond with its Answer or face discipline pursuant to Ariz. Rev. Stat. §§ 32-1154(A)(22) and 32-1155. Correspondence was not returned as undeliverable to Respondent.

On July 16, 2025, the Registrar received Respondent’s timely Answer whereby Mr. Marquez advised that Complainant purchased an $11,200.00 unit that had been reduced by half, and tendered a 50% deposit of $2,800.00 for installation scheduled February 28, 2025. Per Mr. Marquez, installation was rescheduled to March 24, 2025, because the unit was on back-order. On or about March 28, 2025, Respondent provided Complainant with “6 pounds and stop leak,” valued at $2,843.00, at no charge in exchange for Complainant agreeing to reschedule installation on May 08, 2025. Mr. Marquez admitted that installation did not occur as rescheduled because of “unfortunate staffing changes,” at which time Complainant cancelled his order and requested a refund. In turn, Respondent issued Complainant a $2,843.00 bill for its temporary fix of Complainant’s existing air-conditioning unit. Mr. Marquez also advised that Respondent charged Complainant a $43.00 prorated fee and cancellation charge, but noted that Respondent was willing to waive those. Mr. Marquez opined that Complainant owed an outstanding balance due to his cancellation request.

On July 18, 2025, the Registrar referred this matter to the Office of Administrative Hearings (“OAH”), an independent state agency, for an evidentiary hearing on September 09, 2025. Per the July 23, 2025, Notice of Hearing the issues to be determined are whether the Registrar has cause to discipline Respondent’s license based on the following alleged statutory violations:

Charge 1: A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(1)

Charge 2: A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(1)

On September 09, 2025, the matter was continued in order to secure an interpreter for Complainant. At that time, the Registrar was advised of the above-referenced scrivner’s error. In turn, by that same date, the Registrar issued an Amended Notice to the parties, which corrected the issues to be determined at hearing as follows:

Charge 1: A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(1)

Charge 2: A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22)

Hearing Evidence

Complainant testified on his own behalf and called Investigator Anderson as a witness. The substantive evidence of record is as follows:

Complainant owns residential property located at 910 E. Carla Vista Pl. Chandler, Arizona 85225.

On or about February 07, 2025, the parties entered into a $5,600.00 air-conditioning unit replacement agreement. Specifically, Respondent was provided a deposit to remove Complainant’s existing unit and replace it with a Runtru By Trane® 4 Ton 14.3 SEER2 Single Stage Split Heat Pump unit (Condenser Model: A5HP4048A 1000; Air Handler Model: A5AHC007A1030A).

Work on the project was scheduled to commence on February 28, 2025, but never did.

Respondent did not perform any corrective work on the underlying project June 18, 2025, through July 04, 2025, though the license was active and in good standing with the Registrar.

At no point in time did Respondent allege a denial of access to the project site to the Registrar during the Directive’s compliance period, or request an extension thereof to the agency.

Respondent did not communicate with Investigator Anderson whatsoever during the pendency of Complaint No. 2025-06003.

The parties did not enter into a financial settlement agreement regarding the substantiated complaint item at issue.

Additional Evidence

On June 19, 2025, Respondent issued a $2,843.00 invoice to Complainant for “complimentary” repairs performed on his air-conditioner, pending delivery and installation of the unit he ordered. Complainant did not sign a contract for the repair(s) performed, nor did Respondent issue one to him.

Complainant telephoned Mr. Marquez repeatedly throughout May 2025 and June 20025, to no avail. None of his voicemail messages were returned by Mr. Marquez.

Respondent never responded to Complainant’s refund request.

On January 20, 2025, Respondent issued another $3,200.00 invoice to Respondent for work performed at 4422 W. Darrow Dr. Phoenix, Arizona 85339 on December 31, 2024. Complainant does not own that property and never contracted with Respondent to perform any work there.

Closing Arguments

Complainant declined to provide a closing argument.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

This matter lies within the Registrar’s jurisdiction. The matter was properly brought before OAH.

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

The Registrar may resolve contractual disputes if such resolution in ancillary to its regulatory mission and may penalize a contractor’s license by ordering payment of restitution if a proven statutory violation was not remedied by corrective action.

The Notice of Hearing and Amended Notice the Registrar mailed to Respondent’s address of record is sufficient, and Respondent is deemed to have received notice of these proceedings. Because the Registrar mailed all correspondence to Respondent in the same manner and failed to receive any mail returned as undeliverable, Respondent is deemed to have received all correspondence regarding this matter from the OAH as well.

Complainant bears the burden of proof to establish cause for the Registrar to discipline Respondent’s license by a preponderance of the evidence. Respondent bears the burden to establish factors in mitigation of the penalty and affirmative defenses by the same evidentiary standard.

“A preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.” A preponderance of the evidence is “[t]he greater weight of the evidence, not necessarily established by the greater number of witnesses testifying to a fact but by evidence that has the most convincing force; superior evidentiary weight that, though not sufficient to free the mind wholly from all reasonable doubt, is still sufficient to incline a fair and impartial mind to one side of the issue rather than the other.”

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(1) holds, in pertinent part, that that among the grounds for suspension or revocation of a contractor’s license is “[A]bandonment of a contract or refusal to perform after submitting a bid on work without legal excuse for the abandonment or refusal.”

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(22) provides, in pertinent part, that “[a] holder of a license may not fail to take appropriate corrective action to comply with this chapter or rules adopted pursuant to this chapter without valid justification within a reasonable period of time after receiving a written directive from the registrar. The written directive shall set forth the time within which the contractor is to complete the remedial action. The time permitted for compliance shall not be less than fifteen days from the date of issuance of the directive. A license shall not be revoked or suspended nor shall any other penalty be imposed for a violation of this paragraph until after a hearing has been held. The Registrar has the authority to issue license discipline under this provision, including summary suspension, revocation, or imposing a civil penalty or recovery fund award.

Statutes shall be liberally construed to affect their objects and to promote justice. In interpreting a statute, “[w]e first consider the language of the statute and, if it is unclear, turn to other factors, including ‘the statute’s context, subject matter, historical background, effects, consequences, spirit, and purpose.”

Statutes should be interpreted to provide a fair and sensible result. “In applying a statute its words are to be given their ordinary meaning unless the legislature has offered its own definition of the words or it appears from the context that a special meaning was intended.”

The Tribunal is required to apply equitable principles when rendering decisions. The application of equity entails offering a remedy to avoid an unconscionable or unjust result.

The substantive facts of record in this matter are not in dispute.

It is undisputed that the parties had an air-conditioning replacement agreement, and that Complainant paid half of the contract price. It is also undisputed that after rescheduling the underlying work on three (3) occasions, Respondent stopped accepting calls from Complainant and failed to issue a refund as requested. It is further undisputed that Respondent failed to address the Registrar’s Directive during its compliance period, or request an extension thereof.

Therefore, the only remaining issue to address is whether Respondent raised sufficient justification or excuse for failing to complete the underlying project or enter into a settlement agreement with Complainant to satisfy the Registrar’s Directive, or enter ask for an extension thereof prior to the expiration of the corrective order’s compliance period. These are an affirmative defenses that Respondent bears the burden to establish. The Tribunal is not at liberty to make presumptions in favor of Respondent or accept facts in mitigation on behalf of Respondent that are not supported by the evidence. Here, the record reflects that Respondent failed to act in any degree and had no affirmative defense(s) for doing so. Notably, Respondent’s absence from this administrative proceeding is also a factor in aggravation, as it evinces the licensee’s unwillingness to be regulated by the Registrar.

It is also concerning to the Tribunal that Respondent would intentionally invoice Complainant for work that was admittedly free of charge in exchange for additional time afforded Respondent to perform the underlying installation. So too, is Respondent’s issuance of another invoice issued in Complainant’s name, but clearly regarding another unrelated project.

Because Complainant has established Respondent’s statutory violation(s) of Ariz. Rev. Stat. §§ 32-1154(A)(1) and 32-1154(A)(22) by a preponderance of the evidence, Complainant has also established cause for the Registrar to discipline Respondent’s ROC License No. 341591.

Complainant may petition the Registrar’s Recovery Fund for financial recompense in this matter.

RECOMMENDED ORDER

In light of the foregoing,

IT IS RECOMMENDED that five days after the effective date of the Final Order in this matter that ROC License No. 341591, as issued to Respondent Air Pro Heating & Cooling LLC, be revoked.

NOTICE

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, September 30, 2025.

Office of Administrative Hearings

/s/ Jenna Clark

Administrative Law Judge

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

Tom Cole, Director

c/o Legal Department

Registrar of Contractors

1700 W. Washington St., Ste. 105

Phoenix, AZ 85007

[email redacted]

Air Pro Heating & Cooling LLC, Respondent

c/o Eduardo Marquez, Agent

2816 E. Jones Ave.

Phoenix, AZ 85040

[email redacted]

Ricardo I. Enwiya, Complainant

910 E. Carla Vista Pl.

Chandler, AZ 85225

[email redacted]

By: OAH Staff