ALJDEC - Licensing
2025A-07664-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2026-01-26
IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
Jessica Kell and Matthew Stanfel
COMPLAINANTS,
v.
True Custom Remodeling LLC,
License No. ROC 355462,
RESPONDENT.
No. 2025A-07664-CHC-ROC
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION
HEARING: January 8, 2026
APPEARANCES: Matthew Stanfel (Complainant) appeared on behalf of himself by videoconference. Jessica Kell appeared on behalf of herself by videoconference. Tadd Pike appeared on behalf of True Custom Remodeling LLC (Respondent) by videoconference.
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Velva Moses-Thompson
EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: Exhibit A: The hearing packet of the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (Registrar).
_____________________________________________________________________
FINDINGS OF FACT
On November 21, 2025, the Registrar of Contractors (Registrar)
issued a Notice of Hearing setting the above-captioned matter for hearing on January 8, 2026, by the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) in Phoenix, Arizona.
See Exhibit A (Notice of Hearing, pg. 1).
The Notice of Hearing shows that the hearing was set to consider the
charges made in the Citation and Complaint that are cause for the suspension or revocation of a license. See Exhibit A (Notice of Hearing, pg. 3).
Through the Citation, the Registrar alleges that Respondent may have
violated Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(3) (specifically, Ariz. Admin. Code § R4-9-108(A); Ariz. Rev. Stat. §§ 32-1154(A)(16) and (22). See Exhibit A (Notice of Hearing, pg. 2).
4. Respondent holds a R-62 Minor Home Improvements license. See Exhibit A (Directive, pg. 50).
5. Tadd Pike is Respondent’s owner. See the Hearing audio record at 0:00 – 0:02 minutes. Jessica Kell and Matthew Stanfel are owners of Our Little Mesa Cafe (Our Little Mesa Cafe). See the Hearing audio record at 0:00 – 0:02 minutes and 10:00-13:00 minutes.
6. On or about March 28, 2025, Our Little Mesa Cafe and Respondent entered into a commercial remodeling contract for the amount of $19,831.34.
See Exhibit A (Complaint, pgs. 12-14).
7. On or about April 15, 2025, Our Little Mesa Cafe paid Respondent $9,915.67 for the project. See Exhibit A (Complaint, pgs. 13-15).
8. On or about July 6, 2025, Respondent started work. See Exhibit A (Complaint, pg. 10).
9. On or about July 20, 2025, Respondent stopped work. See Exhibit A (Complaint, pg. 10).
10. On or about August 1, 2025, Ms. Kell filed a complaint with the Registrar alleging poor workmanship on the part of Respondent. See Exhibit A (Complaint, pgs. 10-11).
11. On September 4, 2025, an investigator from the Registrar, Steven Avila (Investigator Avila), performed an on-site inspection. See Exhibit A (Job-Site Inspection Notes pg. 28-45).
12. On September 19, 2025, the Registrar issued a Directive to Respondent that provided, in relevant 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 October 6, 2025.
RESTRICTIONS
You may not perform or hire other contractors to perform work that is outside
the scope of your license.
If your license is currently suspended for administrative reasons1, or is inactive, expired, or cancelled, you may not perform any corrective work nor contract in any manner, which includes hiring other contractors to perform work, until the suspension of your license(s) has been lifted or your license(s) has been reactivated.
DIRECTIVE REQUIREMENTS
You are directed to remedy the following violations by the appropriate means:
Complaint Item: 1 - Floors were not Level
Investigator’s Observation: At the time of the inspection there were visible
variations in the subfloor of the restaurant. The variations could be seen
through the flooring installation in multiple locations. Variations in the
subfloor also resulted in movement of the flooring. Verbiage of the estimate
lists "floor preparation" as part of the scope of work. Allegation is verified.
Respondent does not hold the proper license for the scope of work performed.
Scope of work would require a C-08 floor covering license. The respondent
currently holds an R-62 Minor home improvements license. Therefore the
respondent is not able to perform any additional work at the location in regards to needed repairs, but instead should resolve by the appropriate means.
Governing Rule: Violation of any rule adopted by the Registrar; Namely
A.A.C. R4-9-108(a): A contractor shall perform all work in a professional and
workmanlike manner.
A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) - R4-9-108(A) Workmanship
Complaint Item: 2 - No transitioning strips
Investigator’s Observation: At the time of the inspection there were
transition strips missing in multiple locations resulting in irregular edges and
debris accumulating in these areas. Verbiage in the estimate lists "transition
strips" as part of the scope of work. Allegation is verified.
Respondent does not hold the proper license for the scope of work performed.
Scope of work would require a C-08 floor covering license. The respondent
currently holds an R-62 Minor home improvements license. Therefore the
respondent is not able to perform any additional work at the location in regards
to needed repairs, but instead should resolve by the appropriate means.
Governing Rule: Violation of any rule adopted by the Registrar; Namely
A.A.C. R4-9-108(a): A contractor shall perform all work in a professional and
workmanlike manner.
A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) - R4-9-108(A) Workmanship
Complaint Item: 3 - No backs of booths
Investigator’s Observation: At the time of the inspection there were no
backs on the back of the booths inspected. Verbiage in the estimate states "we
will also be putting backing on all of the booths facing the street. Allegation is
verified.
Respondent does not hold the proper license for the scope of work performed.
Scope of work would require a C-08 floor covering license. The respondent
currently holds an R-62 Minor home improvements license. Therefore the
respondent is not able to perform any additional work at the location in regards
to needed repairs, but instead should resolve by the appropriate means.
Governing Rule: Violation of any rule adopted by the Registrar; Namely
A.A.C. R4-9-108(a): A contractor shall perform all work in a professional and
workmanlike manner.
A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) - R4-9-108(A) Workmanship
Complaint Item: 4 - Two different types of flooring
Investigator’s Observation: At the time of the inspection a location was
brought forth near the north west side of the restaurant regarding different
flooring being installed. A distinct sheen and grain pattern variation could be
seen in in this location. Allegation is verified.
Governing Rule: Violation of any rule adopted by the Registrar; Namely
A.A.C. R4-9-108(a): A contractor shall perform all work in a professional and
workmanlike manner.
A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) - R4-9-108(A) Workmanship
Complaint Item: 2 - No transitioning strips
Investigator’s Observation: At the time of the inspection there were
transition strips missing in multiple locations resulting in irregular edges and
debris accumulating in these areas. Verbiage in the estimate lists "transition
strips" as part of the scope of work. Allegation is verified.
Respondent does not hold the proper license for the scope of work performed.
Scope of work would require a C-08 floor covering license. The respondent
currently holds an R-62 Minor home improvements license. Therefore the
respondent is not able to perform any additional work at the location in regards
to needed repairs, but instead should resolve by the appropriate means.
Governing Rule: Violation of any rule adopted by the Registrar; Namely
A.A.C. R4-9-108(a): A contractor shall perform all work in a professional and
workmanlike manner.
A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) - R4-9-108(A) Workmanship
Complaint Item: 3 - No backs of booths
Investigator’s Observation: At the time of the inspection there were no
backs on the back of the booths inspected. Verbiage in the estimate states "we
will also be putting backing on all of the booths facing the street. Allegation is
verified.
Respondent does not hold the proper license for the scope of work performed.
Scope of work would require a C-08 floor covering license. The respondent
currently holds an R-62 Minor home improvements license. Therefore the
respondent is not able to perform any additional work at the location in regards
to needed repairs, but instead should resolve by the appropriate means.
Governing Rule: Violation of any rule adopted by the Registrar; Namely
A.A.C. R4-9-108(a): A contractor shall perform all work in a professional and
workmanlike manner.
A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) - R4-9-108(A) Workmanship
Complaint Item: 4 - Two different types of flooring
Investigator’s Observation: At the time of the inspection a location was
brought forth near the north west side of the restaurant regarding different
flooring being installed. A distinct sheen and grain pattern variation could be
seen in in this location. Allegation is verified.
Respondent does not hold the proper license for the scope of work performed.
Scope of work would require a C-08 floor covering license. The respondent
currently holds an R-62 Minor home improvements license. Therefore the
respondent is not able to perform any additional work at the location in regards
to needed repairs, but instead should resolve by the appropriate means.
Governing Rule: Violation of any rule adopted by the Registrar; Namely
A.A.C. R4-9-108(a): A contractor shall perform all work in a professional and
workmanlike manner.
A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) - R4-9-108(A) Workmanship
Complaint Item: 5 - Flooring was not glued down all the way
Investigator’s Observation: A location was brought forth near the west wall
of the restaurant in which flooring was no longer adhered to the subfloor
material. Allegation is verified.
Respondent does not hold the proper license for the scope of work performed.
Scope of work would require a C-08 floor covering license. The respondent
currently holds an R-62 Minor home improvements license. Therefore the
respondent is not able to perform any additional work at the location in regards
to needed repairs, but instead should resolve by the appropriate means.
Governing Rule: Violation of any rule adopted by the Registrar; Namely
A.A.C. R4-9-108(a): A contractor shall perform all work in a professional and
workmanlike manner.
A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) - R4-9-108(A) Workmanship
Complaint Item: 6 - Glue residue all over flooring
Investigator’s Observation: At the time of the inspection there was residue
brought forth in multiple locations which appeared to be from the flooring
installation. The residue coincides with adhesives which would have been used
in the installation of the flooring. Allegation is verified.
Respondent does not hold the proper license for the scope of work performed.
Scope of work would require a C-08 floor covering license. The respondent
currently holds an R-62 Minor home improvements license. Therefore the
respondent is not able to perform any additional work at the location in regards
to needed repairs, but instead should resolve by the appropriate means.
Governing Rule: Violation of any rule adopted by the Registrar; Namely
A.A.C. R4-9-108(a): A contractor shall perform all work in a professional and
workmanlike manner.
A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) - R4-9-108(A) Workmanship
.............................................................
[Exhibit A (Directive, pgs. 48-51).
13. Respondent failed to comply with the Directive. See the hearing audio record at 10:00 to 15:00 minutes.
14. Respondent filed a timely answer to the Citation. See Exhibit A, pgs. 62-64).
15. The matter was referred to the OAH for an evidentiary hearing.
16. A hearing was held on January 8, 2025.
17. At hearing, Investigator Avila testified regarding his investigation of the complaint, the job site inspection, and the issuance of the Directive. See the hearing audio record at 05:00 to 12:00 minutes. Mr. Stanfel testified on behalf of himself.
See the hearing audio record at 10:00 - 20:00 minutes. Mr. Pike testified on behalf of Respondent. See the hearing audio record at 20:00 -30:00 minutes.
18. Mr. Stanfel testified to the effect that the floors were not level after Respondent completed the installation. Mr. Stanfel explained that Respondent performed poor work.
19. Mr. Pike admitted that he made a mistake when he performed construction on a commercial, although Mr. Pike does not hold a commercial contracting license. Mr. Pike alleged that the owners did not want strips because the elderly clients might slip. However, Respondent did not obtain a written signed waiver from Our Little Mesa Cafe. Mr. Pike did not dispute the findings of Investigator Avila.
20. Administrative notice is taken of the Registrar’s public website. According to the information available on the website on January 26, 2026, Respondent’s license was first issued on November 5, 2024, and is active. Respondent does not hold any other Registrar licenses. Such prior License record also shows that there is only one open complaint against Respondent. Respondent’s license has never been disciplined. The lack of prior discipline taken is considered a mitigating factor in imposing discipline.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
This matter lies within the Registrar’s jurisdiction. See Ariz. Rev. Stat. §§ 32-1101 et seq.
Complainant bears the burden of proof to establish Respondent’s statutory violation by a preponderance of the evidence. See Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 41-1092.07(G)(2); A.A.C. R2-19-119(A) and A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1); see also Vazanno 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 shows that Respondent did not perform
the work in a professional and workmanlike manner in violation of A.A.C. R4-9-108(A), and thereby of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3). Respondent contended at hearing that the owners did not want transition strips installed. If Respondent could not perform the commercial remodeling project without complying with the Registrar’s workmanship standards, it should not have undertaken the job without a written waiver signed by Our Little Mesa Cafe.
4. The preponderance of the evidence shows that Respondent contracted
beyond the scope of its R-62 Minor Home Improvements license, which is a violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154 (A)(16).
5. The preponderance of the evidence shows that Respondent failed to comply with the Registrar’s Directive, without valid justification, which is a 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 License No. 355462 issued to True Custom Remodeling LLC, for three days. It is further recommended that the Registrar require Respondent to pay the sum of $250.00 as a civil penalty pursuant to Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ariz. Rev. Stat. 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)(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, January 26, 2026.
/s/ Velva Moses-Thompson
Administrative Law Judge
Transmitted by either mail, e-mail, or facsimile to:
Tom Cole, Director
Registrar of Contractors
Jessica Kell
[email redacted]
True Custom Remodeling LLC
[email redacted]
By: OAH Staff