ALJDEC - Licensing
2025A-07670-NPC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2025-11-14
IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
4K Aluminum Inc.
COMPLAINANT,
v.
Oasis Patio Cover LLC
License No. ROC 316718,
RESPONDENT.
No. 2025A-07670-NPC-ROC
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION
HEARING: October 27, 2025
APPEARANCES: Keith Jackson appeared on behalf of Complainant. Alonso Murillo appeared on behalf of Respondent.
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Velva Moses-Thompson
EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: Exhibit A: The hearing packet of the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (Registrar or ROC).
_____________________________________________________________________
FINDINGS OF FACT
On September 25, 2025, the Registrar issued a Notice of Hearing setting
the above-captioned matter for hearing on October 27, 2025, by the Office of Administrative Hearings in Phoenix, Arizona.
Respondent holds license number 316718 issued by the Registrar.
The Notice of Hearing shows that the hearing was set to consider the
charges made in the Citation and Complaint.
Through the Citation, the Registrar alleges that Respondent may have
violated Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(10).
A hearing was held on October 27, 2025.
At hearing, Keith Jackson testified on behalf of Complainant. Alonso Murillo
testified on behalf of Respondent.
Complainant sold powder coated patio covers and pergola shade structure
material to Respondent for the amount of $12,176.99, in connection with Respondent’s activities as a contractor.
In or around June of 2025, Complainant issued invoices totaling $12,176.99
for the construction material that it provided to Respondent. However, Respondent did not pay the invoices.
9. Complainant filed a complaint with the Registrar alleging that Respondent failed to pay for materials provided to Respondent.
Respondent filed a timely answer to the Citation.
The matter was referred to the Office of Administrative Hearings for an
evidentiary hearing.
At hearing, Mr. Jackson explained that Respondent failed to pay the
invoices that totaled $12,176.99, for materials provided to Respondent. Mr. Murillo did not dispute that Respondent owes Complainant $12,176.99 for materials. Mr. Murillo stated that Respondent intends to pay Complainant the amount owed.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
A party asserting a claim, right, or entitlement bears the burden of proof; a
party asserting an affirmative defense has the burden of establishing the affirmative defense. The standard of proof on all issues in this matter is that of a preponderance of the evidence. Ariz. Admin. Code R2-19-119.
“At a hearing on an agency action to suspend, revoke, terminate or modify on its own initiative material conditions of a license or permit, the agency has the burden of persuasion.” Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 41-1092.07(G)(2).
A preponderance of the evidence is:
The greater weight of the evidence, not necessarily established by the greater number of witnesses testifying to a fact but by evidence that has the most convincing force; superior evidentiary weight that, though not sufficient to free the mind wholly from all reasonable doubt, is still sufficient to incline a fair and impartial mind to one side of the issue rather than the other.
Black’s Law Dictionary 1373 (10th ed. 2014).
Statutes should be interpreted to provide a fair and sensible result. Gutierrez v. Industrial Commission of Arizona, 226 Ariz. 395, 249 P.3d 1095 (2011)(citation omitted); State v. McFall, 103 Ariz. 234, 238, 439 P.2d 805, 809 (1968) ("Courts will not place an absurd and unreasonable construction on statutes.").
“Statutes shall be liberally construed to effect their objects and to promote justice.” Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 1-211(B).
The Administrative Law Judge may consider Registrar’s administrative record. See Ariz. Admin. Code § R4-9-118.
The purpose of the Registrar’s licensing statutes is to protect the public from unscrupulous, unqualified, and financially irresponsible contractors. See Aesthetic Property Maintenance v. Capital Indem. Corp., 183 Ariz. 74, 900 P. 2d 1210 (1995).
Ariz. Rev. Stat § 32-1154(A) provides that:
The holder of a license or any person listed on a license pursuant to this chapter shall not commit any of the following acts or omissions: .... 10. Failure by a licensee or agent or official of a licensee to pay monies in excess of seven hundred fifty dollars when due for materials or services rendered in connection with the licensee's operations as a contractor when the licensee has the capacity to pay or, if the licensee lacks the capacity to pay, when the licensee has received sufficient monies as payment for the particular construction work project or operation for which the services or materials were rendered or purchased.
8. Ariz. Rev. Stat § 32-1154(A)(10) includes among the grounds for suspension, revocation, or other disciplinary action against a contractor’s license “[f]ailure by a licensee . . . to pay monies in excess of seven hundred fifty dollars when due for materials or services rendered in connection with the licensee’s operations as a contractor when the licensee has the capacity to pay or, if the licensee lacks the capacity to pay, when the licensee has received sufficient monies as payment for the particular construction work project or operation for which the services or materials were rendered or purchased.”
9. Payment for “[s]ervices rendered in connection with the licensee’s operations as a contractor” does not include interest, finance charges, lien charges, or other charges that are based solely on contract terms.
10. The undisputed evidence presented at hearing shows that Respondent has not paid Complainant $12,176.99 for the construction material that Complainant provided to Respondent.
11. The preponderance of the evidence establishes that Respondent violated Ariz. Rev. Stat § 32-1154(A)(10) as alleged.
12. Based upon Respondent’s violation of the provisions of Ariz. Rev. Stat § 32-1154(A)(10), grounds exist to impose discipline against Respondent’s license.
RECOMMENDed order
Based on the foregoing, it is recommended that the Registrar suspend Oasis Patio Cover LLC License No. ROC 316718 issued by the Registrar until it has provided to the Registrar, and the Registrar has accepted, documents that establish that it has paid Complainant $12,176.99 in certified funds.
It is further recommended that when and if the Registrar receives and accepts Respondent’s evidence that it has paid Complainant $12,176.99 in certified funds, the Registrar may close the Complaint in Case No. 2025A-07670.
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 14, 2025.
/s/ Velva Moses-Thompson
Administrative Law Judge
Transmitted by either mail, e-mail, or facsimile to:
Tom Cole, Director
Registrar of Contractors
Oasis Patio Cover LLC
[email redacted]
4K Aluminum Inc
[email redacted]
By: OAH Staff