ALJDEC - Licensing

2025A-06516-NPC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2025-11-18

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

LLM Door LLC

COMPLAINANT,

Micela Properties Inc

License No. ROC 202053,

RESPONDENT.

No. 2025A-06516-NPC-ROC

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION

HEARING: October 21, 2025, with the record held open until October 29, 2025, for the submission of post-hearing exhibits.

APPEARANCES: Lee Mefford appeared on behalf of LLM Door LLC (Complainant). Luigi Micela appeared on behalf of Micela Properties Inc. (Respondent).

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Velva Moses-Thompson

EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: Complainant’s Exhibits 1 through 11. Respondent’s Exhibits A through D.

_____________________________________________________________________

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Complainant entered into a contract with Respondent build and install custom-made doors for a new home located at Lot 50 (hereinafter “the project”). The amount due under the contract was $175,000.

2. Complainant issued an invoice in the amount of $75,000 for the balance Complainant believed that it was owed for the project.

3. Respondent did not pay the invoice.

4. On or about July 2, 2025, Complainant filed a complaint with the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (Registrar or ROC) alleging that Respondent failed to pay an invoice with a balance of $75,000 for the project.

5. On July 29, 2025, the Registrar issued a Citation against Respondent’s license alleging that Respondent violated Arizona Revised Statues (A.R.S.) § 32-1154 (A)(10).

6. Respondent filed a timely answer to the Citation alleging that Complainant failed to complete the scope of work under the contract and that Complainant’s workers “walked off the job.” Respondent alleged in its answer that it was “forced” to hire another contractor to properly complete the installation. Respondent alleged that Complainant performed poor and incomplete work in the following ways:

White Mechanical Room Doors (outer): Install chrome finials and reverse door lever handing (screws should reveal on inside of closet).

White Mechanical Room Doors (inner): Install chrome finials and chrome door stop.

Garage to House Door: Deepen deadbolt strike hole. and the garage door is warped and needs to be replaced per fire code.

Hall Closet Door Near Master Entry: Adjust latch strike plate.

Master Bedroom Entry: Adjust latch and deadbolt strike plate. Putty fill and door stop to be completed by GC after baseboard installation.

Master Bedroom Pocket Door: Install soft open/stop; install guide, liners, and casing; patch drywall after access.

Master Bathroom: Install chrome doorstop.

Living Room/Office Pocket Doors: Install soft open hardware; re-style warped door; refinish and re-install casing trim.

A/V Room: Install new vertical walnut casing (2) – closet side.

Laundry Room Pocket Door: Adjust casing; install soft open and header/liner trim.

Guest Bathroom: Install door stop and adjust deadbolt strike plate.

Gameroom Pocket Door: Modify liners; install soft open mechanism and casing.

Gold Tile Bathroom: Install new vertical trim; adjust deadbolt.

Gameroom Closet Door: Install door stop.

Double Bedroom Door: Adjust for proper latching and locking.

7. The matter was referred to the Office of Administrative Hearings for an evidentiary hearing.

8. A hearing was held on October 21, 2025.

9. At hearing, Lee Mefford, Keith Jackson, Matthew Evans, and Benjamin Herd testified on behalf of Complainant. Luigi Micela testified on behalf of Respondent.

10. Mr. Mefford stated that Complainant delivered all materials to the worksite as agreed under the contract. Mr. Mefford admitted at hearing that he removed several trim pieces from the worksite. Mr. Mefford stated that he removed the trim pieces “once it became clear” that Respondent would not pay him $55,000 for materials.

11. Mr. Jackson is a business coach that was hired by Complainant to manage the financial parts of the project. Mr. Jackon stated that the homeowner raised cosmetic concerns related to the installation that were resolved by Respondent.

12. Mr. Evans testified that Complainant delivered the doors as promised.

Mr. Evans designed the doors himself.

13. Mr. Micela stated that Complainant agreed to complete the project by July of 2024. Mr. Micela explained that Complainant failed to correctly install all the doors. As a result, the installation had to be redone. Complainant and Respondent agreed to a punch list of the items that Complainant would supply to Respondent. Respondent agreed to release payment after Complainant supplied all the items on the punch list. However, Complainant failed to supply all the items. Mr. Micela alleged that Complainant purchased incorrect hardware. Respondent and the homeowner agreed that they would hire a new contractor to complete the project if Complainant failed to complete the work by the start of 2025. Mr. Micela stated that Complainant failed to complete the work and Respondent hired a different contractor to complete the job.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. This matter lies within the Registrar’s jurisdiction.

2. 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.

3. 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).

4. 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.")

5. “Statutes shall be liberally construed to affect their objects and to

promote justice.” Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 1-211(B).

6. 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).

7. Ariz. Rev. Stat section 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. Upon consideration of the evidence presented at hearing, the

Administrative Law Judge concludes that Complainant failed to meet its burden to establish that payment in the amount of $75,000 became due for the material and labor that Complainant provided to Respondent.

9. Accordingly, Complainant has not met its burden to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated Ariz. Rev. Stat section 32-1154(A) (10) as alleged.

ORDER

IT IS ORDERED that the Citation and Complaint in Case No. 2025A-06516 is dismissed.

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, November 18, 2025.

/s/ Velva Moses-Thompson

Administrative Law Judge

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

Tom Cole, Director

Registrar of Contractors

LLM Door LLC

[email redacted]

Micela Properties Inc.

[email redacted]

By: OAH Staff