ALJDEC - Licensing

2025A-07381-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2026-06-15

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

Scott Peters,

COMPLAINANT,

v.

The Lemus Group Inc,

License No. ROC 215088,

RESPONDENT.

No. 2025A-07381-CHC-ROC

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION

HEARING: May 26, 2026 at 1:00pm

APPEARANCES: Complainant Scott Peters appeared on his own behalf with witness Elise Peters. Ray Lemus appeared on behalf of Respondent The Lemus Group, Incorporated. No one appeared on behalf of the Arizona Registrar of Contractors.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Nicole Robinson

EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: Arizona Registrar of Contractors Notice of Hearing Packet (“Packet”).

FINDINGS OF FACT

The Lemus Group, Incorporated (“Respondent”) is the holder of License No. ROC 215088, first issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (“Registrar”) on January 3, 2006.

On or about June 3, 2024, Scott Peters (“Complainant”) entered into a contract with Respondent for, among other things, a detached recreational vehicle garage about 1,700 square feet. The contract was in the amount of $207,800.00 and Complainant paid Respondent $187,020.00.

Respondent began work on the project on or about August 5, 2024 and stopped working on the project around July 26, 2025.

On or about August 14, 2025, the Registrar received a Complaint against Respondent from Complainant alleging abandonment with respect to the project.

The Registrar assigned the complaint to Investigator Joey Chester. On January 22, 2026, Investigator Chester conducted a jobsite inspection, Respondent was not present.

Investigator Chester issued a Written Directive to Respondent that provided 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, March 2, 2026.

. . . .

DIRECTIVE REQUIREMENTS

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

Complaint Item 1: Contract was for a 3-4 month completion, we are a week away from one year.

Investigator’s Observation: At the time of the inspection homeowner stated that no work has been done since October 2025, respondent will need to resume construction to complete project by appropriate means.

Governing Rule: R4-9-108 B: A contractor shall perform all work in accordance with any applicable building codes and professional industry standards. For work to be performed in accordance with professional industry standards, a contractor shall use such skills, prudence, and diligence in performing and completing tasks undertaken that the completed work meets the standards of a similarly licensed contractor possessing ordinary skill and capacity.

7. After the deadline in the directive expired, Investigator Chester was notified that no corrective work had been performed.

8. On March 10, 2026, the Registrar issued a Citation against Respondent, charging possible violations of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(1); Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely Ariz. Admin. Code R4-9-108(A); and Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(22).

Hearing Evidence

Ray Lemus, Respondent Qualifying Party, testified that he had been a general contractor for over 25 years. Mr. Lemus testified that this project was approximately 70% complete. Mr. Lemus discovered there were internal issues within his company that affected his ability to complete this project. Respondent’s project manager mismanaged five other projects which left Mr. Lemus paying back creditors and he stated “financially [its] very tough.” Mr. Lemus testified that he has a commercial general contractor license which was keeping “us” afloat and he wanted to try and finish the project in this case.

Complainant confirmed Investigator Chester’s findings. Complainant testified that Mr. Lemus informed them that he was experiencing money problems and that he spent his money and was unable to finish the project. On or about October 6, 2025, Complainant sent Respondent a certified letter regarding a breach of contract claim and asked them to complete the project by the end of the year. Complainant confirmed that the work was not complete and Respondent just abandoned the job. Complainant contended that the project was about 55% complete, the garage was framed and insulated, and ready for stucco.

Administrative notice was taken of Respondent’s prior License record on May 26, 2026. Such prior License record reflected that Respondent’s License No. ROC 215088 was Suspended. Such prior License record also reflected that there was one open complaint and two complaints resulting in discipline against Respondent’s license.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

This matter lies within the Registrar’s jurisdiction.

Complainant bears the burden of proof to establish Respondent’s statutory violations by a preponderance of the evidence. A preponderance of the evidence means “[p]roof which leads the trier of fact to find that the existence of the contested fact is more probable than its nonexistence.”

In this case, the evidence established that Respondent submitted a bid for Complainant’s project and did not complete the work in the bid. Accordingly, Complainant established that Respondent abandoned the contract and failed to complete the project in a professional and workmanlike manner in violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(1) and Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely Ariz. Admin. Code R4-9-108.

Furthermore, the evidence established that Respondent did not attempt to complete the corrective work following the Directive being issued. Therefore, Complainant established that Respondent failed to take appropriate corrective action following a written directive from the Registrar in violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 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. ROC 215088 for a period of ten days.

It is further recommended that the Registrar require Respondent to pay the sum of $100.00 as a civil penalty pursuant to Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 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. § 32-1101(A)(5), unless Respondent tenders payment of any outstanding prior civil penalty.

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, June 15, 2026.

/s/ Nicole Robinson

Administrative Law Judge

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

Tom Cole, Director

Registrar of Contractors

c/o Legal Department

1700 W. Washington Street, Suite 105

Phoenix, AZ 85007

[email redacted]

Joey Chester

[email redacted]

Scott Peters

28724 N. 252nd Dr.

Wittmann, AZ 85361

[email redacted]

The Lemus Group Inc

4407 E. La Costa Dr.

Chandler, AZ 85249

[email redacted]

By: OAH Staff