ALJDEC - Licensing

2025A-06854-NPC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2025-11-05

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

Cleanview Sewer Inspections LLC,

COMPLAINANT

v.

Sunwest Contracting, LLC

License No. ROC 322472,

RESPONDENT

No. 2025A-06854-NPC-ROC

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION

HEARING: October 21, 2025

APPEARANCES: Edison and Valeria Henao appeared on behalf of Complainant Cleanview Sewer Inspections LLC. Byron Handy and Jacob Sanders appeared on behalf of Respondent Sunwest Contracting, LLC.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Adam D. Stone

EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: Respondent’s Exhibits A-B, and the Notice of Hearing Packet were admitted into evidence.

_____________________________________________________________________

FINDINGS OF FACT

On September 5, 2025, the Registrar of Contractors (“ROC”) issued a Notice of Hearing on Contested Case setting the matter for hearing on October 10, 2025, at the Office of Administrative Hearings.

On July 12, 2025, Complainant, Cleanview Sewer Inspections LLC filed a complaint against Respondent, alleging that Respondent owed Complainant monies in the amount of $57,310.19.

Through the citation and Notice of Hearing, ROC alleges that Respondent may have violated Ariz. Rev. Stat. section 32-1154(A)(10).

Respondent holds License No. 322472 issued by ROC, and timely provided an Answer on June 18, 2025.

Complainant provided sewer inspections on projects for which Respondent was the general contractor.

After a continuance, the hearing was held on October 21, 2025.

Edison and Valeria Henao testified as to the amount due. Ms. Henao testified that the work was performed on the invoices in question and that Respondent failed to pay. Further, Ms. Henao testified that if the work had been rejected by an inspector, they were not aware of any paperwork demonstrating the same. Mr. Henao testified that their job was to clear the sewer lines and video for any issues, but that their work would not have resulted in any damage or deficiencies.

Mr. Handy testified that the two companies had a long history of working together and had paid Complainant in excess of $273,000.00 on their prior projects. Mr. Handy testified that there were three projects however, specifically “66”, “59B”, and “30B”, which were rejected by the inspector. Mr. Handy testified that because of this, he had to pay another contractor to finish the work at a cost of over $100,000.00.

Mr. Sanders testified that he was at the jobsite when the inspector was present and was verbally informed that there were sections which were not filmed.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

Unless otherwise provided by 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).

Among the grounds for suspension or revocation of a contractor’s license is a “[f]ailure by [the] 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.” Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(10).

The preponderance of the evidence shows that Respondent owes Complainant more than $750.00 for materials purchased and work performed in connection with Respondent’s operations as a contractor. From the credible evidence provided, the tribunal finds that $57,310.19.has been due and owing since November 25, 2024, and that Respondent failed to pay without a valid legal excuse, as there were no “rejection” reports submitted into evidence from which the tribunal could glean any issues with Complainant’s work.

Therefore, the preponderance of the evidence shows that Respondent has violated section 32-1154(A)(10).

Respondent’s license should be suspended until it pays to Complainant $57,310.19.

RECOMMENDED ORDER

IT IS RECOMMENDED that Sunwest Contracting LLC’s license number 322472 be suspended until the Registrar receives proof that it has paid to Cleanview Sewer Inspections LLC $57,310.19.

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 5, 2025.

/s/ Adam D. Stone

Administrative Law Judge

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

Tom Cole, Director

Registrar of Contractors

Cleanview Sewer Inspections LLC

[email redacted]

Sunwest Contracting, LLC

[email redacted]

By: OAH Staff