ALJDEC - Licensing

2025A-07849-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2026-04-17

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

Majdi M Hala,

COMPLAINANT

v.

Pinnacle Contracting Services LLC,

License No. ROC 330796,

RESPONDENT

No. 2025A-07849-CHC-ROC

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION

HEARING: March 17, 2026.

APPEARANCES:

Complainant: Majdi Hala

Respondent: Mark Molique, Esq.

Paul Lewis

Registrar of Contractors: Todd Anderson, 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.

Respondent Exhibit 1.

_____________________________________________________________________

FINDINGS OF FACT

Procedural History

Pinnacle Contracting Services, LLC (Respondent) was the holder of License No. 330796 issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (Registrar) on September 25, 2020.

On or about May 24, 2021, Woodland Springs Homeowners Association (Complainant) received an estimate from Respondent for installation of 33 patio block walls.

On or about August 5, 2025, Complainant filed a Licensed Complaint Form with the Registrar, claiming abandonment and poor work.

The Registrar assigned the complaint to Investigator Todd Anderson, who issued a Jobsite Inspection Notice on August 22, 2025, scheduling the inspection for September 16, 2025.

Investigator Anderson made an adverse action call to Paul Lewis, the qualifying party for Respondent, and left a voicemail. On September 16, 2025, Mr. Lewis returned Investigator Anderson’s call advising that to his knowledge Pinnacle Consulting Services was out of business and had never done any work. If it had, it was behind his back. Further, Mr. Lewis advised that Darrin Maurer was the husband of the woman who owned Pinnacle Contracting Services, but did not provide her name. Mr. Lewis stated that he had not renewed his license, so he thought his involvement with Respondent had ended. Investigator Anderson advised Mr. Lewis that he needed to disassociate himself from Respondent and until he did so he would be responsible for complaints filed against Respondent.

Investigator Anderson conducted the jobsite inspection on September 16, 2025, and Respondent was not present. Following the inspection, Investigator Anderson issued a Written Directive From the Registrar to Respondent on October 7, 2025, that provided as follows:

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

Complaint Item: 1 - We hired a contractor to build 33 block walls in front of the condo patios, which included digging 12x16 footings with 4” rebar, installing 4x8x16 fence block with corner blocks, and completing stucco and paint to match the building. The contractor was to complete 10 units at a time, but the work performed was of very poor quality.

Investigator’s Observation: At the time of the Jobsite Inspection conducted on September 16th, 2025, I observed the partial completion of a project to build 4 x 8 x 16” block walls in front of every unit of the condo complex by the Contractor. Of the completed walls inspected, most did not receive a stucco finish on all sides, some were either not painted to match the building’s exterior color or not painted at all, wrong end blocks were used, gapping between the ends of the walls and buildings were not universal, and the majority of the walls had improper sloping which promoted negative drainage going back towards each unit. Additionally, no permits were obtained for the construction of these walls. Contractor shall obtain all necessary permits from the local building authorities, and shall complete the construction of the individual walls per contract and in accordance with all building codes and professional industry standards.

Complaint Item: 2 - The stucco material used was substandard it crumbles with rain or touch-and was only applied to the exterior, leaving exposed block inside the patios, contrary to the approved design.

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. On several walls, the stucco was crumbling. Contractor shall correct by appropriate means.

Complaint Item: 3 – Corners were left open, creating structural integrity issues. When concerns were raised, the contractor attempted quick cosmetic fixes rather than addressing the underlying problems.

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. It appeared that the Contractor had used Hblocks instead of an A-blocks which would normally be used as end pieces. The Contractor then applied what appeared to be either mortar or concrete to the open areas in several blocks as filler. Contractor shall correct by appropriate means.

Complaint Item: 4 – Despite the board approving specific sample walls before work began, the final product did not match those examples.

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. The Complainant directed me to two sample walls which were constructed by the Contractor and were approved by the Complainant and the Woodland Springs HOA board members. These walls had been appropriately stucco’d, left a smaller gap between the walls and the building, and painted to match the color of the buildings. Contractor shall obtain all necessary permits from the local building authorities, and shall correct by appropriate means and per contract.

Complaint Item: 5 – Paint that doesn’t match the bldg. even after he took full payment for the entire project without completing it.

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. Several of the walls were painted a different color than the surrounding building. Contractor shall correct by appropriate means

Complaint Item: 6 – The contractor was paid in full but has dragged this out for years, repeatedly promising to return and fix the issues.

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. Among the other issues pointed out at the Jobsite Inspection, the Complainant had also directed me to a concrete base with the remnants of a light pole sticking up out of it. This base was located in the back parking lot. The Complainant alleged that the Contractor had run into it with his equipment while working on the irrigation lines. He later provided a document which he received from 360 Community Management (the Respondent’s Property Management Co) stating “lighting – SW Pole Light has been ordered as of 5/29/25 with a turn time of 8 to 10 weeks on order”. Contractor shall repair damaged light pole by appropriate means.

Complaint Item: 7 - He last completed work on these walls eight months ago before his license was suspended. His last written commitment was on June 18, 2025, stating he would hire a new contractor to finish the work due to his license being suspended, but he never returned and has effectively abandoned the project, leaving us with unsafe, unfinished work...

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. The Contractor shall complete the contracted work in accordance with applicable building codes and professional industry standards.

Complaint Item: 8 – There was also other contracted work with him for renovation

and landscaping where the work was poor, and not up to code or standard practices.

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. I observed numerous drip irrigation lines which did not have emitters attached to the ends. The Contractor also failed to obtain a permit for the work, did not install shut-off valves, and tampered with (looped) the public side of the city water service line without city coordination. Contractor shall obtain all necessary permits from the local building authorities, and shall complete and correct the irrigation work per contract and in accordance with all building codes and professional industry standards.

The Written Directive required Respondent to notify Investigator Anderson of Respondent’s compliance with the directive prior to 5:00 p.m. on October 29, 2025.

On October 30, 2025, Complainant informed Investigator Anderson that no corrective work had been performed on the project.

On November 4, 2025, the Registrar issued a Citation against Respondent, finding cause to charge Respondent with violations of A.R.S. §§ 32-1154(A)(1); 32-1154(A)(3), namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(A) and (B); and 32-1154(A)(22).

Mr. Lewis filed an Answer to the Citation on November 19, 2025, in which he asserted that he did not contract to perform any of the work in question, nor was he advised, consulted, or informed about any of the work performed. He was entirely unaware of the activities until he received the complaint via email from the Arizona Registrar of Contractors. Mr. Lewis further asserted that Respondent’s managing member, Dawn Hardas, never informed Mr. Lewis that work had commenced using the license. After years of no activity, Mr. Lewis had allowed the license to expire. Mr. Lewis noted the complaint alleged that Darrin Maurer represented Respondent, but Mr. Maurer was, in fact, the owner and manager of 360 Community Management and was neither a manager, member, nor employee of Respondent, nor authorized to represent or contract on its behalf. Respondent and 360 Community Management were separate and unaffiliated entities. Mr. Lewis argued that the qualifying party for Respondent should not be held responsible for work or projects “supposedly” contracted by a third party who was never authorized to do so, and about which the qualifying party was not informed. Further, Mr. Lewis argued that all documents submitted in support of the complaints regarding work on walls done by Respondent were dated in 2021, which exceeded the two-year statute of limitations. Likewise, allegations regarding landscaping, not listed in the complaint but later mentioned to Investigator Anderson, related to work performed in 2022, again, outside the two-year statute of limitations.

The Registrar referred the matter to the Office of Administrative Hearings, an independent state agency, for an evidentiary hearing.

On December 15, 2025, the Registrar issued a Notice of Hearing on Contested Case setting the hearing for January 21, 2026.

On or about January 13, 2026, Majdi Hala, on behalf of Complainant, requested that the hearing be continued to allow additional time for preparation.

On or about January 21, 2026, after a prehearing conference with the parties, the hearing was continued to March 17, 2026. The order granting the continuance from the Office of Administrative Hearings advised the parties how to connect to the hearing via Google Meet.

The hearing was held via Google Meet on March 17, 2026.

Hearing Evidence

Complainant submitted unsigned Estimate No. 1002, dated May 24, 2021, with Pinnacle Contracting Services identified in the header. The recipient of the estimate was “Woodland Spring Association.” The estimate provided, in pertinent part, as follows:

DATE

ACTIVITY

QTY

RATE

AMOUNT

5/24/2021

Block Wall Installation

Block wall in front of patios

Dig footing 12”x16”

Pour footing with # 4 Rebar

Install Fence Block 4x8x16 with corner block at the ends

Stucco

Paint to match building

10 units at a time at this cost

33

1,800.00

59,400.00

BALANCE DUE

59,400.00

Complainant submitted unsigned Invoice No. 2020-2174, dated June 22, 2021, with Pinnacle Contracting Services identified in the header. The recipient of the invoice was “Woodland Spring Association.” The invoice provided, in pertinent part, as follows:

DATE

ACTIVITY

QTY

RATE

AMOUNT

5/24/2021

Block Wall Installation

Block wall in front of patios

Dig footing 12”x16”

Pour footing with # 4 Rebar

Install Fence Block 4x8x16 with corner block at the ends

Stucco

Paint to match building

10 units at a time at this cost

5

1,800.00

9,000.00

BALANCE DUE

9,000.00

Complainant submitted a copy of a single page of its AP Distribution Report for 6/1/2021 – 6/30/2021. The report provided, in pertinent part, as follows:

General Maintenance and Repairs

Posting Date

Check Date

Payee

Description

Invoice #

Check #

Amount

6/22/2021

6/22/2021

Pinnacle Contracting Services LLC

Block Wall Deposit

2020-2174

1142

9,000.00

6/24/2021

6/24/2021

360 Community Management Paul Davis

2” water line repair

1753326

1144

1,014.89

Complainant submitted copies of issued checks. Relevant to the instant matter were the following:

Check #114, dated 7/16/2021, payable to Pinnacle Contracting Services, LLC in the amount of $6,000.00. The memo section referenced an invoice number that was mostly illegible due to the photocopy quality.

Check #115, dated 7/16/2021, payable to Pinnacle Contracting Services, LLC in the amount of $9,000.00. The memo section was illegible.

Check #120, dated 8/10/2021, payable to Pinnacle Contracting Services, LLC in the amount of $9,000.00. The memo section was illegible.

Check #1214, dated 9/10/2021, payable to Pinnacle Contracting Services, LLC in the amount of $32,400.00. The memo section was illegible.

Complainant submitted an Estimate of Probable Cost, dated November 11, 2021, with Pinnacle Contracting Services identified in the header. The recipient of the estimate was “Woodland Spring HOA.” The estimate provided line-item descriptions for work to be performed in the following areas: Demolition, Hardscape, Landscape, Low Voltage Lighting System, and Irrigation. The total estimated cost was $357,286.00. There were 18 notes provided below the line-item estimate and total. Relevant to the instant matter, note #9 provided, “Work with only the board, no homeowners. Payment to be in four quarters ($84,855.50) with 5% hold back per draw until project is complete. All change orders must be in writing.” The estimate was signed by the Woodland Spring President (signature illegible) on January 27, 2022, and Darrin Maurer on behalf of Pinnacle Contracting LLC on January 28, 2022.

Complainant submitted an invoice from Lawson Family Plumbing, Inc., for a diagnostic service call, dated July 5, 2025, and billed to 360 Community Management. Relevant to the instant matter, the plumbing professional noted “kind of coincides with the leak that’s happening with the irrigation line. I also noticed that below the backflow preventer there’s a bypass valve underneath which leads me to believe that the backflows are not under code and bypassed and looped. Covers to those bypass valves are labeled irrigation from the lids . . . . I strongly recommend owner to find and locate irrigation line that is constantly running because I believe it was looped around and connected to the domestic water line incorrectly.”

Complainant submitted copies of incomplete email chains dated between July 29, 2024, and May 29, 2025. Relevant to the instant matter, and in pertinent part, as follows:

On July 29, 2024, Darrin Maurer sent an email to unknown recipients advising, “We have added two drains in front of MJ unit so the water will not built up. The drain was added to the current property drains. We are also all most done with the ends of the block walls we add rebar and cement to fill them in. This week they are replacing the A/C filter in the club house and changing the batteries to all three pool gates. They also will do the club house door.” The email was signed Darrin Maurer, Community Manager, with the website address for 360 Community Management. The email originated from an account associated with Mr. Maurer within the corporate domain of 360 Community Management.

On April 10, 2025, Complainant Homeowner sent an email to Reanna Arthur, Administrative Assistant at 360 Community Management with the subject line “Re: Woodland Springs: Club House” asking, “No response from Lawson?”

On April 11, 2025, Ms. Arthur sent an email to Majdi Hala (MJ) stating, “[Mr. Maurer] met with the third company on Thursday so we are awaiting the pricing and who can start the project right away.” The email to which Ms. Arthur was replying was not submitted by Complainant.

On April 23, 2025, MJ sent an email to Ms. Arthur and Mr. Maurer via their 360 Community Management domain addresses, with the subject line “Re: Woodland Springs: patio walls” stating, “You’re supposed to give me an update Who is the contractor to do the patio walls yesterday. When they’re gonna start. The name of the company you choose to do the job.”

On April 23, 2025, Ms. Arthur replied to MJ from her 360 Community Management domain address and copied Mr. Maurer via his 360 Community Management domain address, stating “[Mr. Maurer] and I are still working on this currently. Once I have the information with the details will be provide to the board. There are some issues with the proposals that we are working on clarifying before choosing the right company. We are also taking care of the light pole and the light of that being replaced to.”

On May 29, 2025, Ms. Arthur emailed Yosdel Castillo of Advanced Community Services (ACS), with the subject line “Re: Woodland springs: Files and Emails” stating, “Lighting – SW Pole Light has been ordered as of 5/29/2025 with a turn time of 8 to 10 weeks on order. Walls – First ten walls will be starting on June 18th.” Complainant placed a “sticky note” on the copy of this email with a handwritten note, “May 29th, 2025, 360 acknowledgement of responsibility.”

Complainant submitted a copy of its June 24, 2025, Board Meeting Minutes. Relevant to the instant matter was a ratification noting, “MJ motioned to submit complaint against Pinnacle LLC under 360 through the AZ Contractors division. Board unanimously Approved 5-0.”

The Articles of Organization for Respondent documented Dawn Hardas as a Member/Manager, Organizer, and Statutory Agent, and Paul Lewis as a Member.

The Articles of Organization for 360 Community Management, LLC documented Darrin Maurer as a Member/Manager and Statutory Agent. Mr. Maurer was the only individual listed in the Articles of Organization for 360 Community Management, LLC.

Administrative notice was taken of Respondent’s prior License record on April 16, 2026. According to that record, Respondent’s License, No. 330796, was Expired; there was one open complaint (instant matter), no disciplined cases, and no resolved/settled complaints against Respondent’s license.

Roc Investigator Hearing Testimony

Investigator Anderson testified in support of his jobsite inspection findings, the Written Directive, compliance inspection findings, and the Citation.

On questioning, Investigator Anderson testified that he had not been provided with documentation indicating that Complainant contracted to have any walls built beyond the first ten. Investigator Anderson could not recall exactly how many patios had walls but testified that every patio with only a few exceptions had a wall. He stated he could not identify a date on which any individual wall was built, including the four sample walls Complainant reported were built by Respondent to receive approval from Complainant to gain the contract. Investigator Anderson testified he did not know the date that a vehicle struck the light pole referenced in the Written Directive. Investigator Anderson testified that although all electronic communication from and to Mr. Maurer was through a 360 Community Management domain address, he believed that because Mr. Maurer was the individual who negotiated and signed the landscaping contract, he was just using a different email address. Investigator Anderson confirmed that any walls at issue in the complaint, subsequently modified by another contractor would be exempt from the complaint and any future directive. Investigator Anderson testified that he could not identify who, whether Respondent or otherwise, tampered with the water service.

Complainant Hearing Testimony

Majdi Hala testified on behalf of Complainant that Mr. Maurer was the owner of 360 Community Management, which served as Complainant’s property management until May 2025. Mr. Hala further testified that Mr. Maurer owned or managed multiple—approximately four—companies, each providing different services. Mr. Hala stated Mr. Maurer was “running the show.” He signed the contracts and spoke on behalf of Respondent, 360 Community Management, and 360 Maintenance Company. Mr. Hala testified that Complainant equated Respondent with 360 Community Management, because Mr. Maurer claimed he owned Pinnacle Contracting Services, and it was all managed by him. Mr. Hala testified that at some unspecified point in time, when he contacted Mr. Maurer regarding the project, Mr. Maurer advised that he had a heart problem and could not “deal with” Respondent anymore, and he would find a different contractor to finish the job. Mr. Hala further testified that after the city permit for the walls expired, he contacted Mr. Maurer urging him to complete the project before the city cited Complainant for violations. Mr. Maurer replied that he had “lost his Pinnacle license” and would have to call another licensed contractor to do the job. Mr. Hala contended that Mr. Lewis was aware of Respondent’s work for Complainant, because Mr. Lewis was concurrently performing work on-site under a separate license. Mr. Hala stated that Mr. Maurer, in his capacity as the property manager, wrote checks on behalf of Complainant to Respondent as the contracting company, and Mr. Maurer was the point of contact for all.

On questioning, in reference to emails exchanged around April 2025, regarding hiring a new contractor, Mr. Hala stated he was unsure whether another contractor ever came to the property and performed work on the project. Mr. Hala testified that his memory is very bad, and he could not remember when a vehicle hit the lamp post but it may have been in 2022 or 2023. Mr. Hala further testified that Complainant did not fully respond to Mr. Molique’s subpoena. He clarified that the Jobsite Inspection General Note stating that the latest communication from Respondent was June 18, 2025, was in fact from Mr. Maurer.

Mr. Hala expressed that if any documentation requested of Complainant was missing, it was an honest mistake. Complainant had repeatedly attempted to get files released from 360 Community Management to the new property management company. However, Mr. Maurer continued to deny the requests because he owned all the companies. Mr. Hala stated that Mr. Maurer had controlled the Board Minutes, and the wording would be changed whenever Members mentioned Pinnacle Contracting Services. He stated he saw now that Mr. Maurer never discussed Respondent. He only mentioned Respondent when he claimed to own Pinnacle Contracting Services, attempted to persuade Complainant to award a contract claiming he would give the best deal, and in an attempt to buy Mr. Hala’s silence.

Ed Safai, a homeowner, testified he had been a resident of Complainant for nearly 20 years and had volunteered with the Homeowner’s Board Association (Association), thus he had been privy to many issues, both personally and as a member. Mr. Safai testified that at some point the landscaping company hired by 360 Community Management drove a Bobcat through his unit. When Mr. Safai attempted to have the company fix the damages, Mr. Maurer refused until the Board finally agreed to support Mr. Safai. Mr. Safai subsequently discovered that the landscaping company was not independent and was, in fact, owned by Mr. Maurer. As a volunteer with the Association, he recalled long conversations regarding the patio walls. Mr. Safai testified that in many cases, there was confusion about who was really the contractor on the project. He stated, “We had names of contractors, but it looked like they were not completely engaged or involved even though they knew about the project, they did not seem to be coming forward to address the issues.”

Respondent Hearing Testimony

Respondent did not testify.

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.”

A threshold issue to be determined is whether Respondent was the entity that contracted with Complainant to construct patio walls. Generally, a principal is not bound by a contract entered into by an individual who lacks actual or apparent authority to act on behalf of the principal. In this case, Respondent’s Articles of Organization, as filed with the Arizona Corporate Commission, did not include Mr. Maurer as a manager or member. Although holding out as an agent of Respondent, Mr. Maurer did not possess the actual authority to act on behalf thereof, nor was evidence presented to demonstrate that Mr. Maurer acted with apparent authority. Therefore, the undersigned Administrative Law Judge finds that Complainant failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent entered into a contract with Complainant. Therefore, Respondent could not have violated A.R.S. §§ 32-1154(A)(1), (A)(3), and (A)(22) with respect to this project.

Even if, arguendo, Respondent was found to be the party responsible for the work at issue, the Complaint would still fail as a matter of law. Under A.R.S. § 32-1162, a written complaint against a licensee must be filed within two years after the completion of the specific project. Here, the evidence established only that a contract was entered into in 2021. There was insufficient evidence to establish that Respondent performed any work on the contract within the two years preceding the filing of the Complaint—August 5, 2025. Therefore, based on the evidence in the record, the Complaint would be recommended for dismissal for untimely filing.

The Tribunal acknowledges that Complainant believed it was engaging with Respondent and as a result suffered harm. However, the Tribunal is bound by the law, and the preponderance of the evidence demonstrated a sophisticated effort by Mr. Maurer, an outside actor, to mislead Complainant. The decision in this matter does not preclude Complainant from seeking relief in a different forum.

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Based on the foregoing, it is recommended that on the effective date of the Registrar’s Order, Complainant’s complaint be closed.

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, April 17, 2026.

/s/ Nedra-Su Kawasaki

Administrative Law Judge

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

Tom Cole, Director

Registrar of Contractors

Majdi M Hala

[email redacted]

Mark Molique

Molique Law, PLLC

[email redacted]

[email redacted]

Todd Anderson

[email redacted]

By: OAH Staff