ALJDEC decisions subject to certification as final

2025A-06966-RFA-LS-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2026-07-07

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

David Ross,

COMPLAINANT

Metro Concrete Arizona LLC

License No. ROC 347745,

RESPONDENT

No. 2025A-06966-RFA-LS-ROC

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW

JUDGE DECISION

HEARING: June 17, 2026

APPEARANCES: Assistant Attorney General Mona Baskin represented the Registrar of Contractors with witness Erika Hoskin. Complainant David Ross on behalf of himself. James Riggs, Qualifying Party, on behalf of Respondent.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Fahd Nazir

EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: Administrative notice was taken of Exhibits 1 through 10 and Appendix A and B submitted by the Registrar of Contractors.

FINDINGS OF FACT

Background and Procedure

The Arizona Registrar of Contractors (Registrar or ROC) issued License No. 347745 to Metro Concrete Arizona LLC (Respondent).

On June 6, 2025, David Ross (Complainant) entered into a contract with Respondent for a residential remodel.

On July 15, 2025, the Registrar received a Complaint against Respondent from Complainant alleging, among other things, poor work and abandonment (the Workmanship Complaint).

On August 5, 2025, the Investigator James Carter conducted a jobsite inspection, and a Written Directive was issued to Respondent the next day. The deadline for corrective work was extended to September 9, 2025, via the Amended Written Directive dated August 28, 2025.

After the compliance inspection, and as a direct result of the Workmanship Complaint, the Registrar issued a Citation on September 15, 2025, against Respondent charging possible violations of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely of Ariz. Admin. Code R4-9-108(A), and Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(22).

Respondent filed a timely answer to the Citation. An administrative hearing was held on November 13, 2025. In the Decision, Administrative Law Judge Velva Moses-Thompson considered Respondent’s arguments and concluded that Complainant established Respondent failed to correct four of the Compliance items without valid justification and thereby violated Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(3) and (22). It was recommended that Respondent’s license be suspended for three days.

On December 22, 2025, the Registrar issued a Final Administrative Decision and Order affirming the violations and imposing a $500.00 civil penalty.

On March 4, 2026, Complainant filed a claim with the Residential Contractors’ Recovery Fund (the Fund) to recover the cost of completing or repairing the project. As part of the claim process, Complainant submitted bids from two different licensed contractors that he had obtained to correct the project. The bids were detailed as follows:

Bid #1 from Concrete Construction in the total amount of $13,612.99.

Bid #2 from YOUNAN Builders LLC in the total amount of $14,000.00.

On March 23, 2026, the Registrar’s Legal Assistant Ms. Erika Hoskin emailed Complainant asking for clarification as to monies owed/paid on the project. During the exchange, Ms. Hoskin notified Complainant that the original investigator confirmed that Bid #2 was in line with the original Workmanship Complaint.

On March 24, 2026, given Investigator Carter’s feedback, Ms. Hoskin issued a Notice of Administrative Award, finding that Complainant’s actual damages were $7,900.00, which was calculated using a Compensable Bid Amount of $14,000.00 from Bid #2 estimate.

On April 7, 2026, Respondent requested a hearing, believing the payout was too high and that the repair work was inconsistent with governing city code. Complainant did not contest the amount of the administrative payout.

The Registrar referred the matter to the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH), an independent state agency, for an evidentiary hearing. A hearing was held via Google Meet on June 17, 2026.

Hearing Evidence

The Registrar conducted a compliance inspection on September 9, 2025. The Compliance Jobsite Inspection General Notes specified the following in pertinent part:

COMPLIANCE FINDINGS:

. . . .

Complaint Item: 2 - Foundation - Drops of 1/2” over 4 feet at southeast corner

Investigator’s Initial 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.

Compliance Observation: Work was not completed

. . . .

Complaint Item: 3 - Foundation - Wavy and humps across east wall where framing will go

Investigator’s Initial Observation: This item is related to item #2 Compliance Observation: Work was not completed

. . . .

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 Initial 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.

Compliance Observation: Work was not completed

. . . .

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 Initial Observation: Verified. Investigator observed that j bolts had been installed along the permitter of the slab on the west side of the home however there where 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.

Compliance Observation: Work was not completed

Ms. Hoskin testified that she reviewed the Complaint, Written Directive, Compliance Jobsite Inspection findings, the Administrative Law Judge Decision regarding the underlying Complaint, the parties’ contract, the payments made by Complainant, the denial letter from Respondent’s bonding company, the deed to the property, and bids submitted by Complainant for repair/completion of the project, in determining that Complainant was eligible to file a claim with the Fund and in calculating Complainant’s actual damages.

Ms. Hoskin stated that Respondent was not in compliance with the Written Directive and several items remained unresolved. She also testified that she consulted Investigator Carter prior to concluding that Bid #2, although not the lowest bid, was the most accurate estimate of outstanding repair/completion work. Regarding Bid #1, she testified that it contained additional items that were not in line with the original contract, whereas Bid #2 was within the “scope of work directed to be completed.”

Ms. Hoskin added that her calculation of actual damages took into account the total contract price and the unpaid balance. She calculated Complainant’s actual damages by subtracting the amount Complainant still owed towards the parties’ contract ($6,100.00) from the amount deemed necessary to repair/complete the project per Bid #2 ($14,000.00) and arrived at actual damages of $7,900.00.

Mr. Riggs testified that Respondent was willing to correct the issues without making substantial changes to the elevation, as he believed substantial changes would be inconsistent with city code anyway. He added that the work could be done at a fraction of the cost and believed Investigator Carter was incorrect in simply “eyeballing” the issues. Mr. Riggs also testified that he was not appealing the amount as such, rather the type and scope of work necessary to repair/complete the project. Regarding, the award amount he said, “the amount is the amount.”

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

This matter lies within the Registrar’s jurisdiction.

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1132.01(B) provides, in pertinent part, as follows:

An award from the residential contractors' recovery fund may not exceed the actual damages suffered by the claimant as a direct result of a contractor's violation. Actual damages:

1. May not exceed an amount necessary to complete or repair a residential structure or appurtenance within residential property lines.

2. Must be established by bids supplied by or the value of work performed by a person that is licensed pursuant to this chapter if the person is required to be licensed pursuant to this chapter.

In this case, Respondent requested a hearing challenging the Fund payout, and consequently, Respondent bears the burden of establishing by a preponderance of the evidence that the proposed award is improper or contrary to law.

“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.”

Respondent had an opportunity to correct the faulty work following the Amended Written Directive from the Registrar and failed to do so. Furthermore, it was undisputed that Respondent did not appeal the discipline issue and consequently failed to plead its case on the Workmanship Complaint.

After review of all the evidence, the Tribunal concludes that Respondent has not sustained its burden to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the proposed award was improper or contrary to law. Complainant is eligible for an award from the Fund and the award proposed by the Fund accurately reflects Complainant’s actual damages. Accordingly, Complainant is entitled to a payout from the Fund in the amount of $7,900.00.

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Based on the foregoing, it is recommended that on the effective date of the Registrar’s final order, Complainant receive a payout from the Residential Contractors’ Recovery Fund in the amount of $7,900.00.

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.

-54864001

001

-137160-45720000Done this day, July 7, 2026.

/s/ Fahd Nazir

Administrative Law Judge

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

Tom Cole, Director

Registrar of Contractors

Metro Concrete Arizona LLC

[email redacted]

David Ross

[email redacted]

By: OAH Staff