ALJDEC - Licensing

2025A-06910-NPC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2025-10-21

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

Turfit Mesa LLC,

COMPLAINANT,

v.

Artificial Grass Masters LLC,

ROC License No. 285231,

RESPONDENT.

No. 2025A-06910-NPC-ROC

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION

HEARING: October 16, 2025 at 9:00 AM.

APPEARANCES: Dennis Arthur DeCarmine appeared on behalf of Turfit Mesa LLC (“Complainant”). No appearance(s) by or on behalf of Artificial Grass Masters LLC (“Respondent”).

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Jenna Clark.

EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: The Notice of Hearing on Contested Case (“Notice of Hearing”), including the referring agency’s attached agency file, and September 24, 2025, Hearing Order were admitted into the evidentiary record.

_____________________________________________________________________

After review of the hearing record in this matter, the undersigned Administrative Law Judge makes the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, and issues this Recommended Order to the Director of the Registrar.

FINDINGS OF FACT

Background and Procedure

Pursuant to Arizona Administrative Code (“Ariz. Admin. Code”) R4-9-117, Administrative Notice is taken of Respondent’s license files as shown on the Registrar’s public website. On June 28, 2013, the Registrar issued ROC License No. 285231 for Specialty Dual CR-21 contracting to Respondent. Respondent’s license is active, in good standing, and renewed through June 30, 2027. Joshua Apodaca is listed as the Qualifying Party and Manager on the license. The address of record for the license is 16681 N. 18th Ave., Ste. 140 Peoria, Arizona 85382. Respondent has a $6,750.00 surety bond for the license issued through RLI Insurance Company, effective May 07, 2013. The license has been disciplined on one (1) prior occasion. Currently, the record reflects that there is one (1) open complaint against the license, which is presumed to be related to this matter.

On or about July 16, 2025, the Registrar received a complaint from Complainant alleging nonpayment of services and/or materials against Respondent. Specifically, Complainant alleged that Respondent had failed to remit timely payment(s) on one (1) invoice totaling $8,276.27 regarding the purchase of 5,385 ft. of artificial turf. The Registrar designated it Complaint No. 2025-06910 and assigned the case to their legal department for review.

On August 18, 2025, the Registrar issued a Citation to Respondent for an alleged violation(s) of Ariz. Rev. Stat § 32-1154(A)(10). Respondent was notified that a failure to provide an Answer by September 02, 2025, would be deemed as an admission of Respondent’s commission of the act(s) charged in the underlying complaint, pursuant to Ariz. Rev. Stat § 32-1155(B), and could result in discipline against Respondent’s license including suspension or revocation.

On August 20, 2025, the Registrar received Respondent’s timely Answer whereby Mr. Apodaca offered, “I’ve contacted the vendor and will be making a payment this week.”

On September 05, 2025, this matter was referred to the Office of Administrative Hearings (“OAH”), an independent state agency, for an evidentiary hearing on October 16, 2025. Per the September 11, 2025, Notice of Hearing the issue(s) to be determined are whether the Registrar has cause to discipline Respondent’s license based on the following charge(s) alleged in the Citation:

Charge 1: A violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(10).

Hearing Evidence

Dennis DeCarmine testified on behalf of Complainant. Although afforded a ten (10) minute grace period, Respondent failed to appear or submit a Motion to Continue. The substantive evidence of record is as follows:

Respondent is Complainant’s client. Complainant is an artificial turf retailer operating from 634 E. Baseline Rd., Ste. 116 Mesa, Arizona 85204.

On or about October 29, 2024, Respondent purchased 5,385 ft. of artificial turf from Complainant, totaling $8,276.27. Respondent tendered $3,100.00 to Complainant for the purchase, and was supposed to tender the outstanding balance of $5,176.27 upon delivery the same date of purchase. Respondent asked Complainant for a payment extension of fourteen (14) days. Complainant agreed.

In or around late-December 2024, Mr. Apodaca informed Mr. DeCarmine that he was unable to pay.

In or around early-January 2025, the parties agreed that Mr. DeCarmine could make weekly payments until the outstanding debt was paid-off. Respondent never made any additional payments on the outstanding invoice.

Complainant has not received any communication from Respondent regarding the outstanding invoice since January 2025, despite multiple efforts on Mr. DeCarmine’s part.

Additional Evidence

Mr. DeCarmine testified that Mr. Apodaca’s only excuse for why Respondent failed to remit the $5,176.27 owed to Complainant was that Respondent’s business was “struggling.”

Closing Arguments

In closing, Complainant argued that discipline of ROC License No. 285231 was warranted by the Registrar because Respondent admitted that the debt was owed, and no justification existed to excuse nonpayment.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

This matter lies within the Registrar’s jurisdiction. The matter was properly brought before OAH.

The purpose of the Registrar’s licensing statutes is to protect the public from unscrupulous, unqualified, and financially irresponsible contractors.

The Registrar may resolve contractual disputes if such resolution in ancillary to its regulatory mission and may penalize a contractor’s license by ordering payment of restitution if a proven statutory violation was not remedied by corrective action.

The Notice of Hearing the Registrar mailed to Respondent’s address of record is sufficient, and Respondent is deemed to have received notice of the hearing in this matter. Because the Registrar mailed all correspondence to Respondent in the same manner and failed to receive any mail returned as undeliverable, Respondent is deemed to have received all correspondence regarding this matter from the Registrar as well.

Complainant bears the burden of proof to establish cause for the Registrar to discipline Respondent’s license by a preponderance of the evidence. Respondent bears the burden to establish factors in mitigation of the penalty and affirmative defenses by the same evidentiary standard.

“A preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.” A preponderance of the evidence is “[t]he 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.”

Statutes should be interpreted to provide a fair and sensible result. Statutes shall be liberally construed to affect their objects and to promote justice.

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1129.02(A) provides, in pertinent part, that “[p]erformance by a subcontractor in accordance with the provisions of a construction contract entitles the subcontractor to payment from the party with whom the subcontractor contracts.”

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1129.02(B) provides, in pertinent part, that “[i]f a subcontractor has performed in accordance with the provisions of a construction contract, the contractor shall pay to its subcontractors within seven days of receipt by the contractor of each progress payment, retention release or final payment, the full amount received for such subcontractor’s work and materials supplied based on work completed or materials supplied under the subcontract.”

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(10) holds, in pertinent part, that 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, 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.”

In the case at bar, the Tribunal is tasked with determining how much money Complainant is owed by Respondent, if any, and if so, whether said debt(s) constitute a violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(10) for which Respondent’s license should be lawfully disciplined by the Registrar.

Upon review of the record, the relevant evidence establishes that Complainant has sustained its burden of proof by the requisite evidentiary standard.

Respondent’s Answer to the Citation, the underlying invoice at issue and corresponding down payment from Respondent, and text messages between the parties support Complainant’s allegation(s) against Respondent. It is uncontroverted from the credible and relevant evidence of record that Respondent purchased artificial turf from Complainant and failed to remit payment in full on said purchase.

Therefore, the only issue remaining is whether Respondent raised a sufficient justification or excuse for failing to remit the $5,176.27 balance due on the outstanding invoice at issue. This is an affirmative defenses that Respondent bears the burden to establish. The Tribunal is not at liberty to make presumptions in favor of Respondent or accept facts in mitigation on behalf of Respondent that are not supported by the evidence. Here, the record reflects that Respondent failed to act in any degree and had no affirmative defense(s) for doing so. Notably, Respondent’s absence from this administrative proceeding is also a factor in aggravation, as it evinces the licensee’s unwillingness to be regulated by the Registrar.

Because Complainant has established Respondent’s statutory violation(s) of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(10) by a preponderance of the evidence, Complainant has also established cause for the Registrar to discipline Respondent’s ROC License No. 285231.

RECOMMENDED ORDER

In light of the foregoing,

IT IS RECOMMENDED that on the effective date of the Final Order in this matter, Respondent Artificial Grass Masters LLC, ROC License No. 285231, shall be suspended and remain in an inactive status until Respondent provides the Registrar with sufficient proof that $5,176.27has been tendered to Complainant in certified funds as restitution in this matter.

IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that after the Registrar has received Respondent’s proof of payment to Complainant, Complaint No. 2025-06910 shall immediately be closed.

NOTICE

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, October 21, 2025.

Office of Administrative Hearings

/s/ Jenna Clark

Administrative Law Judge

Transmitted electronically to:

Tom Cole, Director

c/o Legal Department

Registrar of Contractors

1700 W. Washington St., Ste. 105

Phoenix, AZ 85007

[email redacted]

Turfit Mesa LLC, Complainant

c/o Dennis A. DeCarmine, Agent

21965 E. Maya Rd.

Queen Creek, AZ 85142

[email redacted]

Artificial Grass Masters LLC, Respondent

c/o Joshua Apodaca, Agent

16681 N. 84th Ave. Ste. 140

Peoria, AZ 85382

[email redacted]

By: OAH Staff