ALJDEC - Licensing
2025A-06966-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2025-12-03
IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
David Ross
COMPLAINANT,
v.
Metro Concrete Arizona LLC,
License No. ROC 347745,
RESPONDENT.
No. 2025A-06966-CHC-ROC
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION
HEARING: November 13, 2025
APPEARANCES: David Ross (Complainant) appeared on behalf of himself. James Riggs appeared on behalf of Metro Concrete Arizona LLC (Respondent).
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Velva Moses-Thompson
EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: Complainant’s Exhibits 1 and 2.
Respondent’s Exhibits A through G.
_____________________________________________________________________
FINDINGS OF FACT
On October 9, 2025, the Registrar of Contractors, (Registrar), issued
a Notice of Hearing setting the above-captioned matter for hearing on November 13, 2025, by the Office of Administrative Hearings in Phoenix, Arizona.
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. Rev. Stat. section 32-1154(A)(3)(specifically, Ariz. Admin. Code section R4-9-108(A); Ariz. Rev. Stat. section 32-1154(A)(22).
4. The Citation shows that if the Administrative Law Judge finds that the alleged charges are valid, the Registrar may suspend or revoke Respondent’s license.
5. Respondent filed a timely response to the Citation issued in this matter.
6. A hearing was held on November 13, 2025.
7. At hearing, Complainant testified on behalf of himself and presented the testimony of Steve Lawton, a former investigator for the Registrar. James Riggs, Respondent’s qualifying party, testified on behalf of Respondent.
8. On or about June 6, 2025, Complainant and Respondent entered into a residential remodeling contract, for the amount of $19,850.00
9. On June 16, 2025, Respondent started work.
10. On July 8, 2025, Respondent stopped work.
11. On or about July 18, 2025, the Registrar received a Complaint from Complainant, alleging poor work and abandonment on the part of Respondent.
12. On or about August 5, 2025, Registrar Investigator James Carter,
(hereinafter Investigator Carter), conducted a jobsite inspection.
13. On August 6, 2025, the Registrar issued a Written Directive to Respondent that provided, in relevant part, 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 Tuesday, September 9, 2025.
..............................................
You are directed to remedy the following violations by the appropriate means:
Complaint Item: 2 - Foundation - Drops of 1/2” over 4 feet at south east
corner
Investigator’s Observation: Verified. Investigator found that the slab that
Responded formed and poured on the west wall of the home has a hump that measured almost 3/4" in about 4'. The hump is near the center of the slab and extended out away from the wall almost 6'. ROC Minimum Standards state the floor should not vary from flat more than 1/4" over a 10' area provided the deviation is gradual. Deviations, dips, or sags over short distances and easily visible to the eye may be considered unacceptable. The Respondent will need to correct this by the appropriate means.
Governing Rule: Violation of any rule adopted by the Registrar; Namely
A.A.C. R4-9-108(a): A contractor shall perform all work in a professional and workmanlike manner.
A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) - R4-9-108(A) Workmanship
Complaint Item: 3 - Foundation - Wavy and humps across east wall where framing will go
Investigator’s Observation: This item is related to item #2
Governing Rule: Violation of any rule adopted by the Registrar; Namely
A.A.C. R4-9-108(a): A contractor shall perform all work in a professional and workmanlike manner.
A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) - R4-9-108(A) Workmanship
Complaint Item: 4 - Foundation - Height of forms were set to height of
existing slab. New Slab is 1 1/4” taller than existing slab
Investigator’s Observation: Verified. Per the contract the slab would match the existing elevation top of the floor back of the house. Investigator confirmed that the slab on the west side of the home is approximately 1" higher then the existing slab when measured at the back of the house. The Respondent will need to correct this by the appropriate means.
Governing Rule: Violation of any rule adopted by the Registrar; Namely
A.A.C. R4-9-108(a): A contractor shall perform all work in a professional and workmanlike manner.
A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) - R4-9-108(A) Workmanship
Complaint Item: 5 - Foundation - No j bolts were placed 24 linear feet of
new slab. In other areas some j bolts paced within 1/2” of edge
Investigator’s Observation: Verified. Investigator observed that j bolts had been installed along the perimeter of the slab on the west side of the home however there were no j bolts installed along the wall where the slab connects to the home. Both parties agreed that Complainant would mark the area where the j bolts would go but Respondent claims that area was not marked. I was able to observe markings on the wall that indicated where the bolts would be placed. The Respondent will need to correct this by the appropriate means.
Governing Rule: Violation of any rule adopted by the Registrar; Namely
A.A.C. R4-9-108(a): A contractor shall perform all work in a professional and workmanlike manner.
A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) - R4-9-108(A) Workmanship
..........................................................
14. On August 15, 2025, Investigator Carver received an e-mail from Riggs, wherein Riggs alleged that the plans had no elevation marks to determine where the pad should be poured and placed. Riggs alleged that he poured in the area where Complainant marked the elevations. Investigator Carver advised Riggs that it was Respondent’s responsibility as the contractor to both verify the plans and elevation because Riggs had the set of forms for the pad.
15. On August 28, 2025, Investigator Carter received an e-mail from Riggs requesting an extension. Riggs expressed that he performed no work because he believed that Complainant would file an addendum to the complaint.
16. Although Investigator Carter never confirmed with Complainant or his consultant regarding an intent to file an addendum, Investigator Carter granted Respondent an extension until September 9, 2025, to allow Respondent additional time to consult with an engineer and create a repair plan. Investigator Carter granted the extension on August 28, 2025.
17. On September 5, 2025, Investigator Carter received an e-mail from Riggs that the plans did not represent the current pad elevation of the home. Riggs indicated that the mudroom where the pad he poured met up to the current pad had a drop in it that was not on the plans. Investigator Carter reviewed his photographs and documentation from the job-site inspection and was unable to verify Riggs’s claim regarding the mudroom. As a result, Investigator Cater scheduled a second job-site inspection.
18. On September 9, 2025, Investigator Carter conducted a second job-site inspection. Investigator Carter verified that there was a discrepancy in the plans. However, Investigator Carter recommended that a citation be issued because Respondent never raised a concern about the discrepancy in the plans at the time that he set the slabs. In addition, Respondent did not verify the elevation properly to determine the proper height for the pad. Respondent made no effort to make corrections other than obtaining a copy of the plans.
19. On September 24, 2025, NOEEngineering inspected Complainant’s home and documented the results of its inspection as follows:
The concrete foundation for the addition was cracked on the surface outside of the joints; this cracking is unacceptable since the concrete will be the exposed floor surface.
There is visible waviness and unevenness in the concrete foundation. The center portion of the concrete slab is visibly higher than the edges. Field measurements ere taken and elevation differences of 1-1/8” was measured from the center to one edge and 1-5/8” was measured from the center to another edge.
In conclusion, the concrete slab, as poured, is not acceptable.
20. V Construction prepared an estimate for Complainant to repair the work that Investigator Carter found to be deficient. The estimate provies, “With the slab being placed 2.5 inches out of leve and concrete was poured up agains existing plywood attached to existing house.”
Complainant’s Testimony
21. Riggs requested contact information for Ross’s engineer by e-mail after the extension. Riggs did not attempt to make the corrections required under the Written Directives. Riggs did not hold an inspection, take measurements, or bring engineers to the work site after the Written Directives were issued.
Testimony of Steve Lawton
22. Lawton has worked in the construction industry for over 50 years. In 2021, Lawton retired from the Registrar as a Senior Investigator. Lawton has worked as the senior building inspector for Buckeye.
23. Lawton investigated Complainant’s property. Lawton observed that the slab was not level, nor flat, and the corners were falling away from the flatness of the slab. Lawton never observed that the slab did not meet the level of the mudroom. Lawton noticed that the slab was positioned between the lower elevation and the residence area elevation.
Testimony of James Riggs
24. Riggs asserted that Complainant chose the elevation for the project. Riggs alleged that Complainant was the general contractor for the project. Riggs stated that the elevation should have been at the back of the home. Riggs argued that the city stamped drawings do not show an elevation drop on the plans for the mudroom.
25. Upon consideration of the evidence presented at hearing, the Administrative Law Judge finds that Respondent, the contractor in this matter, was responsible for properly verifying the elevation and the proper height for the pad. Respondent failed to do so. The Administrative Law Judge does not find that Complainant was the general contractor for the project.
26. Administrative notice is taken of the Registrar’s public website. According to the information available on the website on December 3, 2025, Respondent’s license was first issued on September 20, 2023, and is suspended. Such prior License record also shows that there is one open complaint against Respondent’s license and that one complaint has resulted in discipline of Respondent’s license. Such prior License record further shows that one complaint was closed against Respondent that was resolved or settled by Respondent or withdrawn by the complainant after the issuance of a corrective work order for formal citation.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
This matter lies within the Registrar’s jurisdiction. See A.R.S. § 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 suspended status of Respondent’s license does not deprive
Complainant of his right to prosecute the Complaint or prevent the Registrar from determining the merits of Complainant’s complaint.
The preponderance of the evidence shows that Respondent failed to
perform the work in a professional and workmanlike manner, in violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. section 32-1154(A)(3), namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(A).
The preponderance of the evidence shows that Respondent failed to
comply with the Registrar’s Written 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 suspend License No. 347745 issued to Metro Concrete Arizona LLC, for three days. It is further recommended that the Registrar require Respondent to pay the sum of $500.00 as a civil penalty pursuant to Ariz. Rev. Stat. section 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. section 32-1101(A)(7), unless Respondent tenders payment of any outstanding prior civil penalty.
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, December 3, 2025.
/s/ Velva Moses-Thompson
Administrative Law Judge
Transmitted by either mail, e-mail, or facsimile to:
Tom Cole, Director
Registrar of Contractors
David Ross
[email redacted]
Metro Concrete Arizona LLC
[email redacted]
By: OAH Staff