ALJDEC - Licensing
2025A-07454-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2026-03-20
IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
Neda Lane,
COMPLAINANT
v.
7R Roofing LLC,
License No. ROC 324770,
RESPONDENT
No. 2025A-07454-CHC-ROC
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION
HEARING: February 19, 2026.
APPEARANCES:
Complainant: Neda Lane
Respondent: Stephen Ramirez
Registrar of Contractors: Gregory Johndrow, Investigator
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Nedra-Su Kawasaki
EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: Administrative notice was taken of the Notice of Hearing Packet submitted by the Registrar of Contractors.
_____________________________________________________________________
FINDINGS OF FACT
7R Roofing, LLC (Respondent) was the holder of License No. 324770 issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (Registrar) on June 14, 2019.
On or about August 17, 2023, Neda Lane (Complainant) entered into a contract with Respondent to, among other things, reroof the residence, designated as 1528.
On or about July 28, 2025, Complainant filed a Licensed Complaint Form with the Registrar, claiming poor work.
The Registrar assigned the complaint to Investigator Johndrow, who issued a Jobsite Inspection Notice on July 28, 2025, scheduling the inspection for August 22, 2025.
After rescheduling due to scheduling conflicts, Investigator Johndrow conducted the jobsite inspection on September 3, 2025, and Respondent was present. Following the inspection, Investigator Johndrow issued a Written Directive From the Registrar to Respondent on September 11, 2025, that provided as follows:
You are directed to remedy the following violations by the appropriate means:
Complaint Item 1: “Seal around AC” (Complainant’s description of the roof top HVAC unit disconnection at the Plenum.)
Investigator’s Observations: Verified.
• The HVAC unit is not connected or sealed to the plenum.
Complaint Item 2: “cracking” (Complainant’s description of the cracking, delamination and flaking of the roof coating.)
Investigator’s Observations: Verified.
• The roof coating is cracking, delaminating and flaking in multiple areas of the roof, along the parapets, around the roof jacks and around the roof vents.
Complaint Item 3: “leaking, open loose pipes”
Investigator’s Observations: Verified.
• No pipe jack was installed on one of the plumbing vents, leaving an open void into the ceiling space below.
Complaint Item 4: “mesh showing”
Investigator’s Observations: Verified.
• The fabric mesh, used in areas where a 3 course application was performed, has not received adequate coverage to properly seal the location.
• The conditions were observed in multiple areas of the roof, along the parapets, at the roof edge, around the roof jacks and skylights.
Complaint Item 5: “seal edges of porch”
Investigator’s Observations: Verified.
• The cap sheet, installed on the small roof top between unit 1528 and 1530, is lifting and requires sealing along the drip edge in multiple locations.
Complaint Item 7: “missing roof drain” (Complainant’s description of the condensate drain from the HVAC unit.)
Investigator’s Observations: Verified.
• The condensate drain line was broken and has not been repaired.
• The condensate drain line was left draining directly onto the roof top.
The Written Directive required Respondent to notify Investigator Johndrow of Respondent’s compliance with the directive prior to 5:00 p.m. on September 29, 2026.
On October 6, 2025, Investigator Johndrow issued a Compliance Inspection Notice, setting the inspection for October 14, 2025. During the inspection, Compliance Items 5 and 7 were deemed not completed.
On October 17, 2025, the Registrar issued a Citation against Respondent, finding cause to charge Respondent with violations of Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) § 32-1154(A)(3), namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(A), and § 32-1154(A)(22).
Respondent submitted an Answer to the Citation on October 24, 2025. Respondent’s Answer asserted the initial and corrective work was performed with the best skill and professionalism. The compliance inspection was performed the day after a massive rainstorm where more rain fell in a 72-hour period than the average for the month. Further, the perimeter was nailed to manufacturer’s specifications, and the contract specified that Respondent would engage an HVAC contractor to move and re-position the roof-top mechanical unit, and Respondent would not be liable for any damage that occurred to the unit or components while in the course of normal work.
The Registrar referred the matter to the Office of Administrative Hearings, an independent state agency, for an evidentiary hearing.
On November 18, 2025, the Registrar issued a Notice of Hearing on Contested Case setting the hearing for December 29, 2025.
The hearing was rescheduled twice due to scheduling conflicts.
On or about January 14, 2026, the parties were notified the hearing was continued to February 19, 2026. The order granting the continuance from the Office of Administrative Hearings advised the parties of how to connect to the hearing via Google Meet.
The hearing was held via Google Meet on February 19, 2026.
Investigator Johndrow testified in support of his jobsite inspection findings, the written directive, compliance inspection findings, and the Citation. Specifically noting, compliance photo 15 was evidence of no work performed for Complaint item 7, and compliance photos 16-18 were evidence of the west side of the roof that was not corrected.
Mr. Ramirez testified, on behalf of Respondent, regarding Complaint item 5, he had believed it was the other side of the roof to which Investigator Johndrow had directed to be corrected. Additionally, after viewing compliance photos 16-18 during the hearing, Mr. Ramirez stated, “I see what you are concerned about.” Regarding Complaint item 7, Mr. Ramirez testified that he did not perform corrective work on the roof drain because the parties’ contract provided it was not his responsibility. On questioning, Mr. Ramirez stated Respondent hired an HVAC contractor to remove the air conditioner and replace it when the roof was finished. He further testified that in such arrangements, it was the responsibility of the roofing contractor (Respondent, in this case) to take before and after pictures of the HVAC unit removal and replacement to note any discrepancies, and to bill any “extra” work as “additional” with change orders.
Administrative notice was taken of Respondent’s prior License record on March 20, 2026. According to that record, Respondent’s License No. 324770 was active; and there were two open complaints, no disciplined cases, and no resolved/settled complaints 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. Respondent bears the burden of proof to establish an affirmative defense by a preponderance of the evidence.
“A preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.”
The preponderance of the evidence established that Respondent failed to perform all work in a professional and workmanlike manner in violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(A), specifically regarding Complaint items 5 and 7.
It is acknowledged that Respondent attempted to comply with the Written Directive, and in fact corrected four of the six verified Complaint items. However, Complaint item 5—sealing of a section of roof—was missed. Regarding Complaint item 7, Mr. Ramirez argued that the parties’ contract addressed the HVAC removal and specified Respondent was not liable for damage. During the hearing, Mr. Ramirez testified that it was Respondent’s responsibility to take photos of the HVAC removal and if any damage occurred to request the HVAC contractor correct any damage and invoice the charges. However, in this case, Respondent did not follow this protocol nor correct the violation. Therefore, the preponderance of the evidence established 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), specifically regarding Complaint items 5 and 7.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Based on the foregoing, it is recommended that on the effective date of the Order, the Registrar shall suspend for two business days Respondent’s License No. 324770.
It is further recommended that the Registrar require Respondent to pay the sum of $100.00 as a civil penalty pursuant to A.R.S. § 32-1154(E).
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 20, 2026.
/s/ Nedra-Su Kawasaki
Administrative Law Judge
Transmitted by either mail, e-mail, or facsimile to:
Tom Cole, Director
Registrar of Contractors
Neda Lane
[email redacted]
7R Roofing LLC
[email redacted]
Gregory Johndrow, Investigator
[email redacted]
By: OAH Staff