ALJDEC - Licensing
2025A-06034-NPC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2025-10-08
IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
Yuma Nursery
COMPLAINANT,
v.
Reliable Electrical Solutions AZ, LLC
License No. ROC 349272, RESPONDENT.
No. 2025A-06034-NPC-ROC
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION
HEARING: September 24, 2025
APPEARANCES: Campbell David Jensen appeared on behalf of Yuma Nursery (hereinafter “Complainant”). No one appeared on behalf of Reliable Electrical Solutions AZ, LLC (hereinafter “Respondent”).
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Velva Moses-Thompson
EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: Exhibit A: The Arizona Registrar of Contractors (hereinafter “Registrar”)’s hearing packet.
_____________________________________________________________________
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Respondent rented a storage unit container from Complaint to use in connection with Respondent’s operations as a contractor.
2. Complainant issued invoices to Respondent totaling $1,781.87 for the rental. However, Respondent did not pay the invoices.
4. On or about June 18, 2025, Complainant filed a complaint with the Registrar alleging that Respondent failed to pay for rental equipment provided to Respondent, when payment became due.
6. On July 17, 2025, the Registrar issued a Citation against Respondent’s license for an alleged violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(10). The Citation shows that if the Administrative Law Judge finds that the charge is valid, the Registrar may suspend or revoke Respondent’s license.
7. Respondent filed a timely answer to the Citation.
8. The matter was referred to the Office of Administrative Hearings for an evidentiary hearing.
10. A hearing was held on September 24, 2025.
11. No one appeared on behalf of Respondent at the scheduled time and the matter was convened in its absence at about 9:15 a.m.
12. At hearing, Campbell David Jensen, an employee of Complainant, testified on behalf of Complainant. Mr. Jensen explained that Respondent requested to rent the storage unit, however, Respondent failed to pay for the rental. Mr. Jensen stated that the Superintendent on site confirmed that Respondent used the storage unit.
Mr. Jensen also explained that the storage unit was dirty and one of the vents was removed.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
A party asserting a claim, right, or entitlement bears the burden of proof; a party asserting an affirmative defense has the burden of establishing the affirmative defense. The standard of proof on all issues in this matter is that of a preponderance of the evidence. Ariz. Admin. Code R2-19-119.
“At a hearing on an agency action to suspend, revoke, terminate or modify on its own initiative material conditions of a license or permit, the agency has the burden of persuasion.” Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 41-1092.07(G)(2).
A preponderance of the evidence is:
The 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.
Black’s Law Dictionary 1373 (10th ed. 2014).
Statutes should be interpreted to provide a fair and sensible result. Gutierrez v. Industrial Commission of Arizona, 226 Ariz. 395, 249 P.3d 1095 (2011)(citation omitted); State v. McFall, 103 Ariz. 234, 238, 439 P.2d 805, 809 (1968) ("Courts will not place an absurd and unreasonable construction on statutes.").
“Statutes shall be liberally construed to effect their objects and to promote justice.” Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 1-211(B).
The purpose of the Registrar’s licensing statutes is to protect the public from unscrupulous, unqualified, and financially irresponsible contractors. See Aesthetic Property Maintenance v. Capital Indem. Corp., 183 Ariz. 74, 900 P. 2d 1210 (1995).
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A) provides that:
The holder of a license or any person listed on a license pursuant to this chapter shall not commit any of the following acts or omissions: .... 10. Failure by a licensee or agent or official of a licensee to pay monies in excess of seven hundred fifty dollars when due for materials or services rendered in connection with the licensee's operations as a contractor when the licensee has the capacity to pay or, if the licensee lacks the capacity to pay, when the licensee has received sufficient monies as payment for the particular construction work project or operation for which the services or materials were rendered or purchased.
8. 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 . . . to pay monies in excess of seven hundred fifty dollars when due for materials or services rendered in connection with the licensee’s operations as a contractor when the licensee has the capacity to pay or, if the licensee lacks the capacity to pay, when the licensee has received sufficient monies as payment for the particular construction work project or operation for which the services or materials were rendered or purchased.”
9. Payment for “[s]ervices rendered in connection with the licensee’s operations as a contractor” does not include interest, finance charges, lien charges, or other charges that are based solely on contract terms.
10. The preponderance of the evidence shows that Respondent violated Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(10) as alleged.
11. 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.
12. Because A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(10) only includes a licensee’s failure to pay for
materials or services rendered in connection with the licensee’s operations as a contractor, not late fees, interest, or other consequential or contractual damages, the Administrative Law Judge does not recommend that Respondent be required to pay late fees as a condition of keeping its contractor’s license in good standing.
RECOMMENDed order
Based on the foregoing, it is recommended that the Registrar suspend License No. ROC 349272 issued to Reliable Electrical Solutions AZ, LLC until it has provided to the Registrar, and the Registrar has accepted, documents that establish that it has paid Complainant $1,781.87 in certified funds.
It is further recommended that when and if the Registrar receives and accepts Respondent’s evidence that it has paid Complainant $1,781.87 in certified funds, the Registrar may close the Complaint in Case No. 2025A-06034.
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 8, 2025.
/s/ Velva Moses-Thompson
Administrative Law Judge
Transmitted by either mail, e-mail, or facsimile to:
Tom Cole, Director
Registrar of Contractors
Reliable Electrical Solutions AZ, LLC
[email redacted]
Yuma Nursery
[email redacted]
By: OAH Staff