ALJDEC - Licensing
2025A-07518-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2025-11-05
IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
Scott Gunnell,
COMPLAINANT
v.
The Villalpando Corporation, Inc
DBA: Villalpando Custom Homes Builders,
License No. ROC 195458,
RESPONDENT.
No. 2025A-07518-CHC-ROC
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION
HEARING: October 16, 2025.
APPEARANCES:
For Complainant: Scott Gunnell.
For Respondent: No appearance.
For the Registrar of Contractors: Jeremy Rosenthal.
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Samuel Fox
EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: Administrative notice was taken of the Notice of Hearing Packet submitted by the Registrar of Contractors. Complainant’s Exhibits.
_____________________________________________________________________
FINDINGS OF FACT
The Villalpando Corporation, Inc. (Respondent) was the holder of License No. 195458, issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (Registrar) on May 4, 2004, and revoked on September 22, 2025.
On or about September 22, 2023, Scott Gunnell (Complainant) entered into a contract with Respondent for, among other things, construction of a metal building.
On or about July 23, 2025, Complainant filed a Licensed Complaint Form with the Registrar, claiming abandonment.
The Registrar assigned the complaint to Investigator Jeremy Rosenthal, who conducted a noticed Jobsite Inspection on August 8, 2025, for which Respondent was not present.
On August 13, 2025, the Registrar issued a Citation against Respondent, finding cause to charge Respondent with violations of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(1) and A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3), specifically R4-9-108(A).
Respondent submitted an Answer to the Citation on August 28, 2025.
The Registrar referred the matter to the Office of Administrative Hearings, an independent state agency, for an evidentiary hearing.
On September 11, 2025, the Registrar issued a Notice of Hearing on Contested Case setting the hearing for October 16, 2025, at 1:00 PM. The Registrar mailed the Notice of Hearing to Respondent at its contact address of record. The Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings provided virtual login information to Respondent at its email address of record.
Respondent did not appear at the hearing through an authorized member, employee, or attorney. Respondent did not request that the hearing be further continued. Consequently, Respondent did not present any evidence to defend its license.
Investigator Rosenthal testified in support of his findings.
Complainant testified in support of Investigator Rosenthal’s findings.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Respondent was deemed to have received the Notice of Hearing by methods reasonably calculated to effect notice. The Registrar mailed copies of the Notice of Hearing on Contested Case to its address and email address of record, and the Office of Administrative Hearings sent the order setting the continued hearing date to Respondent at its email address of record.
This matter lies within the Registrar’s jurisdiction.
Respondent’s revoked license does not deprive Complainant of the right to prosecute the complaint or prevent the Registrar from determining the merits of the complaint.
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 abandoned the project or refused to perform work without a legal excuse in violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(1).
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
“The registrar may impose a civil penalty of not to exceed $500 on a contractor for each violation of subsection A, paragraph 22 of this section.” If a licensee fails to pay the civil penalty, their license is automatically revoked “thirty days after the effective date of the order providing for the civil penalty.” Additionally, any “person who is or was named on a license. . . may not receive a new license under this chapter until the entire civil penalty is paid.”
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Based on the foregoing, it is recommended that on the effective date of the Order, the Registrar shall revoke Respondent’s License No. 195458.
It is further recommended that the Registrar require Respondent to pay the sum of $500.00 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, November 5, 2025.
/s/ Samuel Fox
Administrative Law Judge
Transmitted by either mail, e-mail, or facsimile to:
Tom Cole, Director
Registrar of Contractors
Scott Gunnell
[email redacted]
The Villalpando Corporation, Inc
DBA: Villalpando Custom Homes Builders,
[email redacted]
Jeremy Rosenthal
[email redacted]
By: OAH Staff