ALJDEC - Licensing
2025A-07911-NPC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2025-11-07
IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
Jose Diaz Marble & Granite LLC,
COMPLAINANT
v.
Arizona New Image Contractors LLC
License No. ROC 239066,
RESPONDENT
No. 2025A-07911-NPC-ROC
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION
HEARING: October 24, 2025
APPEARANCES: Jose Diaz Guzman appeared on behalf of Complainant. Jose Diaz Marble & Granite LLC. Tim Spradley appeared on behalf of Arizona New Image Contractors LLC.
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Adam D. Stone
EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE:
_____________________________________________________________________
FINDINGS OF FACT
On September 26, 2025, the Registrar of Contractors (“ROC”) issued a Notice of Hearing on Contested Case setting the matter for hearing on October 24, 2025, at the Office of Administrative Hearings. The Notice of Hearing was sent to Respondent’s address of record.
On October 7, 2025, the tribunal issued an Order containing the Google Meet information which was also sent to the parties e-mail address of record.
On August 6, 2025, Complainant, Jose Diaz Marble & Granite LLC filed a complaint against Respondent, alleging that Respondent owed Complainant monies in the amount of $1,871.25.
Through the citation and Notice of Hearing, ROC alleges that Respondent may have violated Ariz. Rev. Stat. section 32-1154(A)(10).
Respondent holds License No. 239066 issued by ROC, and timely provided an Answer on September 19, 2025.
Complainant provided slab work on a project for which Respondent was the general contractor.
Jose Diaz testified that all proposals for work were signed by Mr. Spradley on behalf of Respondent, and that Respondent failed to pay $1,101.25 on invoice 5345, and $ 770.00 on invoice 5346.
Tim Spradley testified that while he signed the proposals, he believed that based on the work performed, it should not cost him any additional monies. Mr. Spradley testified that after the original contractor who fabricated the countertops closed its business before the countertops could be install, he hired Complainant to install the same.
Both parties also testified as to their records with ROC.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Unless otherwise provided by 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 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).
Among the grounds for suspension or revocation of a contractor’s license is a “[f]ailure by [the] 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.” Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(10).
The preponderance of the evidence shows that Respondent owes Complainant more than $750.00 for materials purchased and work performed in connection with Respondent’s operations as a contractor. From the credible evidence provided, the tribunal finds that $1,871.25 has been due and owing since July 4, 2025, and that Respondent has failed to pay without a valid legal excuse.
Therefore, the preponderance of the evidence shows that Respondent has violated section 32-1154(A)(10).
Respondent’s license should be suspended until it pays to Complainant $1,871.25.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
IT IS RECOMMENDED that Arizona New Image Contractors LLC license number 239066 be suspended until the Registrar receives proof that it has paid to Jose Diaz Marble & Granite LLC $1,871.25.
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 7, 2025.
/s/ Adam D. Stone
Administrative Law Judge
Transmitted by either mail, e-mail, or facsimile to:
Tom Cole, Director
Registrar of Contractors
Jose Diaz Marble & Granite LLC
[email redacted]
Arizona New Image Contractors LLC
[email redacted]
By: OAH Staff