ALJDEC - Licensing
2025A-06536-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2025-10-08
IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
Dalia Zimmermam
COMPLAINANT,
v.
Titan Heating & Cooling, LLC
License No. ROC 332867,
RESPONDENT.
No. 2025A-06536-CHC-ROC
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION
HEARING: September 22, 2025
APPEARANCES: Dalia Zimmermam (hereinafter “Complainant”) appeared on behalf of herself. Ron Morgan appeared on behalf of Titan Heating & Cooling, LLC (hereinafter “Respondent).
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Velva Moses-Thompson
_____________________________________________________________________
FINDINGS OF FACT
On August 14, 2025, the Arizona Registrar of Contractors, (hereinafter “Registrar”), issued a Notice of Hearing setting the above-captioned matter for hearing on September 22, 2025.
The Notice of Hearing shows that the hearing was set to consider the charges made in the Citation and Complaint.
Through the Citation, the Registrar alleges that Respondent may have violated Ariz. Admin. Code. R4-9-108(A) and (B), and thereby Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A) (3); Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A) (2(b) and Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A) (12) and (22); Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1158. The Citation shows that if the Administrative Law Judge finds that any of the alleged charges are valid, the Registrar may suspend or revoke Respondent’s license.
At hearing, an investigator for the Registrar, John Smith (hereinafter “Investigator Smith”), testified regarding his investigation of the Complaint. Complainant testified on behalf of herself. Ron Morgan, Respondent’s qualifying party, testified on behalf of Respondent.
On or about June 25, 2025, Respondent agreed to install an air conditioning unit in Complainant’s home for the amount of $8,829.00.
On June 25, 2025, Complainant paid Respondent a deposit in the amount of $7,000.
On June 30, 2025, Complainant paid the balance owed.
Respondent did not provide Complainant with a contract that included an estimated date of completion, a payment schedule, information about Complainant’s right to file a complaint, contact information for the Registrar, and a signature of the contractor.
On or about July 2, 2025, Complainant filed a Complaint with the Registrar alleging poor work on the part of Respondent.
The Registrar assigned the complaint to Investigator Smith.
On July 2, 2025, Complainant told Investigator Smith that she had been without air conditioning for multiple days.
Investigator Smith considered Complainant’s lack of air conditioning to be an issue of life and safety.
Investigator Smith scheduled a job-site inspection for 3:30 p.m. on July 2, 2025.
Investigator Smith notified Complainant and Respondent of the job-site inspection.
On July 2, 2025, Investigator Smith conducted a job-site inspection. Alaskan Air Conditioning, an air conditioning contractor, was present at the job-site inspection. Investigator Smith verified the following items:
The Air conditioner was not working.
Exterior temperatures were in excess of 110 degrees.
Refrigerant line not fully insulated
Air handler not adequately supported
Screwed into the top
At least one chain not connected
Air handler bent and out of square
Access panels of air handler not fitting properly
Chimney not connected
Thermostat wires not properly connected
Rigid gas line bent and creased
Rigid gas line not secured/supported
Sediment trap installed horizontally
Negative slope on both condensate drains
Access panel of evaporative coil removed
Evaporative coil froze
Portions of uninsulated ductwork
“Sharkbite” fittings on high pressure refrigerant line
Per the manufacturer, the Sharkbite push-to-connect fittings are not rated for refrigerant lines.
Portions of duct work inadequately supported with foil tape
Portions of kinked ducts
During the rain, water leaking from disconnected chimney
Work was performed without a permit being obtained.
During the job-site inspection, Alaskan Air Conditioning observed the following deficiencies:
The system was not working.
Suction line had a leak near the condenser outside.
Both king valves were front seated to keep refrigerant in the condenser due to multiple leaks.
In the attic, thermostat wiring was wired incorrectly with loose wires hanging uncapped.
The unit was not properly braced; the system was leaning forward which would cause flooding and other issues.
The rigid gas line was bent, to make a gas connection instead of proper install.
The liquid line had a plastic plumbing fitting that also had oil build up around it.
After the job-site inspection, Alaskan Air Conditioning replaced Complainant’s air conditioning equipment.
Respondent filed a timely answer to the Citation.
The matter was referred to the Office of Administrative Hearings for an evidentiary hearing.
At hearing, Complainant contended that the air conditioning unit installed by Respondent did not function properly. Mr. Morgan contended that Respondent did not complete the job because Respondent did not have proper aluminum welding equipment. Mr. Morgan stated that he told Complainant that Respondent would need to return after obtaining the proper aluminum welding equipment. However, Mr. Morgan stated that Complainant was “freaking out because it was taking forever.” Mr. Morgan stated that he offered a portable air conditioning unit to Complainant by text message. Complainant denied that Respondent offered her the portable unit prior to July 2, 2025.
Complainant contended that a contractor does not need four days to install an air conditioning unit.
21. Administrative notice is taken of the Registrar’s public website. According to the information available on the website on October 8, 2025, Respondent’s license was first issued on April 2, 2021, and is active. Such prior License record also shows that there is only one open complaint against Respondent. Respondent’s license has never been disciplined. The lack of prior discipline taken is considered a mitigating factor in imposing discipline.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
This matter lies within the Registrar’s jurisdiction. See Ariz. Rev. Stat. sections 32-1101 et seq.
Complainant bears the burden of proof to establish Respondent’s statutory violation by a preponderance of the evidence. See Ariz. Rev. Stat. section 41-1092.07(G)(2); A.A.C. R2-19-119(A) and A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1); see also Vazanno v. Superior Court, 74 Ariz. 369, 372, 249 P.2d 837 (1952). “A preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.” Morris K. Udall, Arizona Law of Evidence § 5 (1960)
The preponderance of the evidence shows that Respondent did not obtain
a permit to install the air conditioning unit, which is a violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. section 32-1154(A) (2) (b).
The preponderance of the evidence shows that Respondent did not perform
work in a professional and workmanlike manner, which is a violation of A.A.C. R4-9-108(A), and thereby of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A) (3).
5. The preponderance of the evidence shows that Respondent did not perform
work in accordance with applicable building codes and professional industry standards, which is a violation of A.A.C. R4-9-108(B), and thereby of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A) (3).
6. The undisputed evidence established that Respondent’s contract did not include an estimated date of completion, a payment schedule, information about Complainant’s right to file a complaint, contact information for the Registrar, and Respondent’ signature, which is a violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A) (12) and Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1158.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Based on the foregoing, it is recommended that on the effective date of the Order, the Registrar shall suspend License No. 332867 issued to Titan Healing & Cooling, LLC, for one day. It is further recommended that the Registrar require Respondent to pay the sum of $250.00 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) (7), unless Respondent tenders payment of any outstanding prior civil penalty.
It is further ordered that within thirty days of the effective date of the final order, Respondent shall provide to the Registrar copies of its form contract that has been revised to comply with the requirements of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1158(A).
If Respondent fails to provide proof that it has so revised its form contracts, it is recommended that Respondent’s license be suspended for three days.
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
Titan Heating & Cooling, LLC
[email redacted]
Dalia Zimmermam
[email redacted]
By: OAH Staff