ALJDEC - Licensing
2025A-06341-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2025-12-08
IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
Lilla Bailey,
COMPLAINANT,
v.
Leading Edge Services LLC
DBA: Leading Edge Construction Services,
License No. ROC 350694,
RESPONDENT.
No. 2025A-06341-CHC-ROC
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION
HEARING: December 1, 2025 at 1:00pm
APPEARANCES: Complainant Lilla Bailey appeared on her own behalf. Investigator Mike Crosby appeared on behalf of the Arizona Registrar of Contractors. No one appeared on behalf of the Respondent.
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Nicole Robinson
EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: Arizona Registrar of Contractors Notice of Hearing Packet (“Packet”).
FINDINGS OF FACT
Leading Edge Services, LLC dba Leading Edge Construction Services (“Respondent”) is the holder of License No. ROC 350694, first issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (“Registrar”) on March 4, 2024.
On or about June 27, 2025, Lilla Bailey (“Complainant”) entered into a contract with Respondent for, among other things, minor remodel of her second family home located in Overgaard, Arizona in Navajo County.
In Navajo County, the County Building Department required that any work being performed by a contractor over the amount of $1,000.00 required a permit.
Respondent provided Complainant an estimate on August 29, 2024, in the amount of $9,519.08. The estimate was the only document in regards to this project and not signed by either party. The estimate did not contain the following: the date the parties entered into the contract, the estimated date of completion of all work to be performed, the total dollar amount of any advance deposit paid or scheduled to be paid to the contractor by the owner, the dollar amount of any progress payment and the stage of construction at which the contractor will be entitled to college progress payments during the course of construction under the contract, and no information about Registrar contact information or rights.
Respondent did not obtain a permit from the County to perform the work.
On or about June 27, 2025, the Registrar received a Complaint against Respondent from Complainant alleging poor work with respect to the project.
The Registrar assigned the complaint to Investigator Mike Crosby. On July 10, 2025, Investigator Crosby conducted a jobsite inspection and Respondent was not present.
On July 11, 2025, Investigator Crosby 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 August 2, 2025.
. . . .
DIRECTIVE REQUIREMENTS
You are directed to remedy the following violations by the appropriate means:
Complaint Item: 1 – Siding has separated at the joint, siding has popped in one area.
Investigator’s Observation: Verified. The Respondent will need to correct this by the appropriate means. The item is describing the outside corner trim and transition pieces. The board were install with insufficient fasteners and are pulling from the exterior. The trim material used does not meet industry standards as it contains untreated raw wood and wane.
. . . .
Complaint Item: 2 - Window trim on all windows is loose and not caulked, kitchen window trim has pulled away from siding
Investigator’s Observation: Verified. The Respondent will need to correct this by the appropriate means. Same as Item #1. Fasteners and materials do not meet standards.
. . . .
Complaint Item: 3 - Drip edge flashing is short allowing water to run inside kitchen window jam
Investigator’s Observation: Verified. The Respondent will need to correct this by the appropriate means. The Roof to Porch transition and drip edges were not properly sealed or fastened in a way to prevent water intrusion. The Respondent may not have installed the drip edges but did attempt to seal the transition and installed the trim with inadequate materials.
. . . .
Complaint Item: 4 - Kitchen window leaks in jam and at the top of the window.
Investigator’s Observation: Verified. The Respondent will need to correct this by the appropriate means. Caulk used is not installed properly or is the wrong type, as it is washing away. The windows did not have proper flashing taping prior to trim. This allows the water to travel to the interior.
. . . .
After the deadline in the directive expired, Investigator Crosby was notified that no corrective work had been performed.
On August 22, 2025, the Registrar issued a Citation against Respondent, charging possible violations of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(2)(a); Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(2)(b); 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; and Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(22).
The Registrar referred the above-aforementioned matter to the Office of Administrative Hearings (“OAH”), an independent state agency, for an evidentiary hearing.
The Registrar issued a Notice of Hearing, setting an initial hearing at 1:00pm on October 22, 2025. The Registrar mailed copies of the Notice of Hearing to Complainant and Respondent at its address and email address of record.
On September 25, 2025, an order from the OAH advised the parties of how to connect to the hearing via Google Meet.
On October 20, 2025, two days prior to the scheduled hearing date, Jeff Mize, Respondent’s Qualifying Party, requested a continuance due to “a tragic family matter in Albuquerque,” and stated the matter could take about one month.
Respondent’s request was granted. The matter was postponed and rescheduled to be heard on December 1, 2025 at 1:00pm. On October 22, 2025, an Order from OAH was issued and advised the parties on how to connect to the hearing via Google Meet.
On November 25, 2025, Mr. Mize asked for another continuance stating that he was “in New Mexico looking for my nephew and cannot guarantee that I will be able to attend the meeting. . .my apologies but I am trying to locate a family member that is missing.” Shortly after Mr. Mize’s request, Complainant sent a message to OAH, concerned with the delays. After this Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) received Complainant’s response, this ALJ sent a message to the parties which informed Mr. Mize that this Tribunal needed documentation of the missing nephew by 10:00am on November 26, 2025. This ALJ did not receive the requested documentation by 10:00am on November 26, 2025.
On November 29, 2025, this ALJ issued an Order Denying Continuance. On December 1, 2025, Mr. Mize responded with screenshots of law enforcement and court records and stated that the nephew “[i]s wanted by the authorities for a crime.” This ALJ reiterated that the hearing would move forward due to Respondent’s request being denied.
The hearing was held via Google Meet on December 1, 2025 at 1:00pm. 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
Investigator Crosby testified that Navajo County, where the property sat, required that work performed by a contractor which totaled more than $1,000.00, needed to have a building permit. On or about July 14, 2025, Respondent informed Investigator Crosby that they were in the process of obtaining a permit, however, the permit was never presented to the Registrar. In addition, Investigator Crosby testified that the work Respondent performed on the windows contained loose trim which pulled away from the siding, there were leaks from the windows whereby water collected in the window jam and from the top of the windows, and that this work did not comply with the window manufacturer's specifications.
Complainant testified that she reached out to Respondent on multiple occasions but Mr. Mize, “kept putting me off.”
Administrative notice was taken of Respondent’s prior License record on December 1, 2025. Such prior License record reflects that Respondent’s License No. ROC 350694 was Suspended due to a lack of bond. Such prior License record also reflects that there was one open complaint and no complaints resulting in discipline against Respondent’s license.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
This matter lies within the Registrar’s jurisdiction.
The October 22, 2025, Google Meet Order issued to Respondent at its email address of record was reasonable, and Respondent was deemed to have received notice of the hearing.
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.”
The evidence established that Respondent did not complete the project in accordance with the window manufacturer plans without Complainant’s consent and did not adhere to the applicable building code due to the lack of a permit. Therefore, Complainant established that Respondent departed from and disregarded the plans and applicable building code in violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(2)(a) and (b).
In addition, the evidence established that Respondent’s work was not in conformity with the Registrar’s standards. Therefore, Complainant established 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).
Furthermore, the evidence established that Respondent’s contract failed to include the 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).
Lastly, 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).
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 350694 for a period of five days.
It is further recommended that the Registrar require Respondent to pay the sum of $300.00 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, December 8, 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]
Leading Edge Services LLC
DBA: Leading Edge Construction Services,
PO Box 90827
White Mountain Lake, AZ 85912
[email redacted]
Lilla Bailey
1732 E CHEERY LYNN RD
Phoenix, AZ 85016
[email redacted]
Miles Crosby
[email redacted]
By: OAH Staff