ALJDEC - Licensing

2025A-07210-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2026-03-10

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

Kevin Redus,

COMPLAINANT

v.

All Inclusive Contracting LLC,

License No. ROC 277121,

RESPONDENT

No. 2025A-07210-CHC-ROC

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION

HEARING: February 25, 2026

APPEARANCES: Howard Higley appeared for Complainant Kevin Redus. Jason Clouse appeared on behalf of Respondent All Inclusive Contracting LLC. Registrar of Contractors Investigator David Fagerburg appeared via Google Meet.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Adam D. Stone

EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE:

_____________________________________________________________________

FINDINGS OF FACT

All Inclusive Contracting LLC (Respondent) is the holder of License No. 277121 issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (Registrar).

On or about February 24, 2025, Complainant hired Respondent to construct an Anytime Fitness location in Scottsdale, Arizona.

On or about July 22, 2025, the Registrar received a Complaint against Respondent from Complainant alleging poor work with respect to project.

The Registrar assigned the complaint to Investigator David Fagerburg. The jobsite inspection was performed on September 18, 2025.

Investigator Fagerburg then issued a Written Directive on or about October 20, 2025, which provided in pertinent 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 Monday November 10, 2025.

. . .

DIRECTIVE REQUIREMENTS

You are directed to remedy the following violations by the appropriate means:

Complaint Item 2: Upstairs rubber damaged irreparably during construction. Needs to be replaced.

Investigator’s Observation: At this jobsite investigation at the upper level I observed remnants of drywall dust along the base of an office wall and what appears to be drywall stains impregnated in the rubber floor covering. The complainant’s manager provided photos during the project showing there was no floor covering to protect the rubber floor surface. See P (11) thru P (19). During this jobsite investigation the respondent acknowledged that during the project a water line was penetrated while installing an access door to the office. Both parties acknowledged the respondent made an attempt to clean the rubber flooring at the end of the project. The respondent shall correct the remaining drywall remnants on the rubber flooring by appropriate means.

Governing Rule: ARS § 32-1154 (A) (3) namely R4-9-108 Poor work, not performed in accordance with professional industry standards.

Complaint Item 3: Monogram sign installed in wrong place, contractor didn't consult plans before installing sign.

Investigator’s Observation: At this jobsite investigation I observed a monogram sign installed on a wall just inside the entrance to the facility. The signage is installed at the top right corner of a display wall above eye level. See P (23) and P (24). The respondent stated that the scope of work does not include the signage installation and the business manager instructed the respondent to install the signage at the present location. The complainant disagreed and in an email provided a copy of the design packet that includes a general overview of the location with dimensions on page 16 for the signage placement on the lit monogram wall and a scope of work that does include the installation and that the respondent was provided this information. The respondent accepted the responsibility to install the monogram signage as a part of the scope of work and shall correct the location of the monogram sign location per the design packet page 16 and any required repairs to the wall by appropriate means.

Governing Rule: ARS § 32-1154 (A) (3) namely R4-9-108 Poor work, not performed in accordance with professional industry standards.

. . .

On November 25, 2025, Investigator Fagerburg conducted a Compliance Jobsite Inspection. Investigator Fagerburg’s noted that:

Compliance Findings:

Complaint Item 2: Upstairs rubber damaged irreparably during construction. Needs to be replaced.

Investigator’s Initial Observation: At this jobsite investigation at the upper level I observed remnants of drywall dust along the base of an office wall and what appears to be drywall stains impregnated in the rubber floor covering. The complainant’s manager provided photos during the project showing there was no floor covering to protect the rubber floor surface. See P (11) thru P (19). During this jobsite investigation the respondent acknowledged that during the project a water line was penetrated while installing an access door to the office. Both parties acknowledged the respondent made an attempt to clean the rubber flooring at the end of the project. The respondent shall correct the remaining drywall remnants on the rubber flooring by appropriate means.

Compliance Observation: Both parties acknowledged the upstairs rubber flooring was washed in an attempt to remove the remaining drywall dust and stains impregnated in the rubber flooring material. The rubber flooring still has remnants of drywall dust at the base of the new office walls along with stains at other locations. See P (3) thru P (10).

Governing Rule: The respondent is not in compliance with the directive. ARS § 32- 1154 (A) (3) namely R4-9-108 Poor work, not performed in accordance with professional industry standards.

☐ CORRECTED ☒ NOT CORRECTED

Complaint Item 3: Monogram sign installed in wrong place, contractor didn't consult plans before installing sign.

Investigator’s Initial Observation: At this jobsite investigation I observed a monogram sign installed on a wall just inside the entrance to the facility. The signage is installed at the top right corner of a display wall above eye level. See P (23) and P (24). The respondent stated that the scope of work does not include the signage installation and the business manager instructed the respondent to install the signage at the present location. The complainant disagreed and in an email provided a copy of the design packet that includes a general overview of the location with dimensions on page 16 for the signage placement on the lit monogram wall and a scope of work that does include the installation and that the respondent was provided this information. The respondent accepted the responsibility to install the monogram signage as a part of the scope of work and shall correct the location of the monogram sign location per the design packet page 16 and any required repairs to the wall by appropriate means.

Compliance Observation: The complainant acknowledged the respondent relocated the monogram sign to the proper location but did not complete painting the wall prior to the directive expiration and would not allow the respondent back onto the property. See P (11).

Governing Rule: The respondent is not in compliance with the directive. ARS § 32- 1154 (A) (3) namely R4-9-108 Poor work, not performed in accordance with professional industry standards.

☐ CORRECTED ☒ NOT CORRECTED

. . .

On December 4, 2025, the Registrar issued a Citation against Respondent, charging possible violations of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) – R4-9-108(A), and A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22).

On or about December 10, 2025, Respondent submitted an Answer to the Registrar.

On or about January 14, 2026, a Notice of Hearing was issued setting a hearing on February 25, 2026, at the Office of Administrative Hearings, an independent state agency.

At hearing, Investigator Fagerburg testified as to the Registrar’s involvement and the above timeline and findings.

Mr. Higley testified that it appeared as if Respondent failed to use drop cloths and other protection for the floor when commencing work. Further, he testified that while the sign was moved to the correct location, Respondent failed to touch up the paint from the erroneous location.

Mr. Clouse did not dispute the workmanship issues, rather that he was denied access to make the necessary repairs. For example, he appeared on a Saturday without prior notice and was denied access to clean the floors.

Jennifer Litvinoff testified that on the day the Directive expired, November 10, 2025, she sent an email requesting that a painter repaint the wall the next day, but Complainant refused.

Administrative notice was taken of Respondent’s prior License record on March 10, 2026. Such prior License record reflected that Respondent’s License No. 277121 was first issued on March 21, 2012. The License record also reflected that there was one open case, namely the present case.

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 violations by a preponderance of the evidence. See A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2); A.A.C. R2-19-119(A) and A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1); see also Vazzano 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 preponderance of the evidence established, and Respondent admitted, that there was a violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) – R4-9-108(A), as the flooring was not correctly installed.

Finally, the preponderance of the evidence established that all items remained incomplete. Therefore, Complainant proved that Respondent failed to take appropriate corrective action following a written directive from the Registrar in violation of A.R.S. § 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 Respondent’s License No. 277121 for a period of one day.

It is further recommended that the Registrar require Respondent to pay the sum of $50.00 as a civil penalty pursuant to A.R.S. § 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 A.R.S. § 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, March 10, 2026.

/s/ Adam D. Stone

Administrative Law Judge

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

Tom Cole, Director

Registrar of Contractors

All Inclusive Contracting LLC

[email redacted]

[email redacted]

Kevin Redus

[email redacted]

By: OAH Staff