ALJDEC - Licensing
2025A-06786-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2025-10-24
IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
TINA EAVES
COMPLAINANT,
v.
Air Pro Heating & Cooling LLC,
License No. ROC 341591,
RESPONDENT.
No. 2025A-06786-CHC-ROC
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION
HEARING: October 6, 2025
APPEARANCES: Tina Eaves (hereinafter “Complainant”) appeared on behalf of herself. No one appeared on behalf of Air Pro Heating & Cooling, LLC (hereinafter “Respondent”).
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Velva Moses-Thompson
_____________________________________________________________________
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. On August 28, 2025, the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (hereinafter “Registrar”) mailed a Notice of Hearing to the parties at their addresses of record, setting the above-matter for hearing on October 6, 2025 at 1:00 PM. The Notice of Hearing provided, in relevant part, as follows:
................................
You must attend this hearing. This is an adversarial hearing before an administrative law judge, and is conducted in a similar manner as judicial proceedings. Thus, you must be prepared to present evidence, including witness testimony and documents, in support of your case.
................................
The complaint and citation allege that the Respondent committed the following act(s): Charge: 1 A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(1) Charge: 2 A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) - R4-9-108(a) Charge: 3 A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22)
................................
Because Respondent is a licensee and is charged with an act(s) or omission(s) that is cause for the suspension or revocation of a license, Respondent is a party to this case and will be a party to the hearing. Because Complainant alleged Respondent committed an act(s) or omission(s) that is cause for the suspension or revocation of a license, Complainant is a party to this case and will be a party to the hearing. Respondent and Complainant, as the parties to the hearing, will present evidence and argument to the administrative law judge.
................................
Emphasis in original.
2. A hearing was held on October 6, 2025.
3. At hearing, Complainant testified on behalf of herself. Lisa Melton, an investigator for the Registrar (hereinafter “Investigator Melton”), testified regarding her investigation of the complaint.
4. No one appeared on behalf of Respondent at the hearing on October 6, 2025. Although the hearing did not start until approximately 1:15 p.m., no one appeared on behalf of Respondent through an authorized member, officer, employee, or attorney, or contact the OAH to request that the start of the hearing be further delayed. Consequently, Respondent did not present any evidence to defend its license.
5. On or about June 16, 2025, Complainant and Respondent entered into a contract wherein Respondent would install air conditioning units on Complainant’s property for the amount of $23,905.00.
6. On or about June 16, 2025, Respondent started work.
7. Respondent last worked on the project on June 23, 2025.
8. On or about July 10, 2025, Complainant filed a complaint with the Registrar alleging abandonment on the part of Respondent.
9. The Registrar assigned the complaint to Investigator Melton. After a jobsite inspection, Investigator Melton 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 1, 2025.
RESTRICTIONS
• You may not perform or hire other contractors to perform work that is outside
the scope of your license.
• If your license is currently suspended for administrative reasons1, or is inactive,
expired, or cancelled, you may not perform any corrective work nor contract in
any manner, which includes hiring other contractors to perform work, until the
suspension of your license(s) has been lifted or your license(s) has been
reactivated.
DIRECTIVE REQUIREMENTS
You are directed to remedy the following violations by the appropriate means:
Complaint Item: They received a check for half the amount and never kept one
appointment that they set for install.
Investigator’s Observation: Parties entered into contract on May 6, 2025. No
work relative to the contract has been performed. On June 30th, Respondent emailed that the work would be performed on July 9th. Respondent did not appear and has not responded to Complainant’s attempts to contact them. At this time, neither unit has been installed. Respondent did not appear for this inspection. Two old window units were put in place by Respondent when Complainant was not home (Complainant’s son provided access). It appears that at least one of these window units has damaged the window screen. Respondent should correct the damage caused by installation of the window units and complete their scope of work by appropriate methods and in accordance with estimate/contract, executed change orders, substantiated verbal agreements, specifications, drawings, building code/requirements of the local building
authority (permit/inspection), manufacturer recommendations, industry and
workmanship standards. Respondent should provide this Investigator with
documentation of the passed final permit for the work they perform.
Governing Rule:
A.R.S. §32-1154 (A) (1), Abandonment of a contract or refusal to perform after
submitting a bid on work without legal excuse for the abandonment or refusal.
10. Respondent did not comply with the Directive.
11. On August 11, 2025, the Registrar issued a Citation against
Respondent’s license alleging that Respondent violated Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(3) - Ariz. Admin. Code R4-9-108(A); Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(1) and (22).
12. Respondent filed a timely answer to the Citation.
13. The matter was subsequently referred to the Office of Administrative
Hearings (hereinafter “OAH”) for an evidentiary hearing.
Complainant’s Testimony
14. At hearing, Complainant explained that she paid Respondent half of the amount of the contract as a down payment. Respondent told Complainant that it would begin work on June 14, 2025.
15. On June 14, 2025, Respondent notified Complainant that it was experiencing “installation problems”. Respondent brought temporary air conditioning units to Complainant. However, the units were dirty and provided no relief.
16. Complainant testified to the effect that Respondent would continuously promise to come and install the units, but never came.
17. Complainant explained that her son lives with her and suffers from chronic heart failure. Complainant stated that because she was without air conditioning, her son overhydrated and became hospitalized in August of 2025. In her closing statement, when speaking about Respondent’s conduct, “I felt like it was a swindle.”
Investigator Melton’s Testimony
18. Investigator Melton testified consistently with her job site inspection notes and the written directive. Investigator Melton explained that Respondent sent her an email message three days after the Directive expired stating in general that Respondent intended to proceed with the installation. However, Complainant subsequently informed Investigator Melton that no work had been performed.
19. Administrative notice is taken of Respondent’s prior License record as
reflected on the Registrar’s public website on October 24, 2025. Such prior License record reflects that Respondent’s License No. ROC 341591 is revoked.
Such prior License record also shows that two complaints have resulted in discipline against Respondent’s license. Such prior License record also shows that there are seven open complaint’s against Respondent’s license.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
This matter lies within the Registrar’s jurisdiction. See A.R.S. § 32-1101 et seq.
The revoked status of Respondent’s license does not deprive Complainant
of her right to prosecute the Complaint or prevent the Registrar from determining the merits of Complainant’s complaint. This matter lies within the Registrar’s jurisdiction.
The burden of proof at an administrative hearing falls to the party
asserting a claim, right, or entitlement and the standard of proof on all issues in these matters is by a preponderance of the evidence. See A.A.C. R2-19-119.
3. The Administrative Law Judge may consider the Registrar’s administrative record. See Ariz. Admin. Code § R4-9-118.
4. 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).
5. The preponderance of the evidence shows that Respondent abandoned the project, which is a violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. section 32-1154(A)(1).
6. The preponderance of the evidence shows that Respondent failed to
perform work in a professional and workmanlike manner, which is a violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. section 32-1154(A)(3), namely Ariz. Admin. Code R4-9-108(A).
7. The preponderance of the evidence shows that Respondent failed to
correct the items listed in the Registrar’s Directive without valid justification, which is a violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. section 32-1154(A)(22).
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Based on the foregoing, it is recommended that on the effective date of the Order, the Registrar shall revoke ROC License: No. 328162 held by Air Pro Heating & Cooling LLC.
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 24, 2025.
/s/ Velva Moses-Thompson
Administrative Law Judge
Transmitted by either mail, e-mail, or facsimile to:
Tom Cole, Director
Registrar of Contractors
TINA EAVES
[email redacted]
Air Pro Heating & Cooling LLC
[email redacted]
By: OAH Staff