ALJDEC - Licensing
2025A-07948-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2026-02-18
IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
Neda Lane,
COMPLAINANT
v.
7R Roofing LLC
License No. ROC 324770,
RESPONDENT
No. 2025A-07948-CHC-ROC
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION
HEARING: February 3, 2026
APPEARANCES: Complainant Neda Lane appeared on her own behalf. Stephen Ramirez appeared on behalf of 7R Roofing LLC. Investigator Gregory Johndrow appeared on behalf of the Registrar of Contractors.
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Adam D. Stone
EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE:
_____________________________________________________________________
FINDINGS OF FACT
7R Roofing LLC (Respondent) is the holder of License No. 324770 issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (Registrar).
On or about August 6, 2024, Complainant hired Respondent to replace her roof at her rental property in Tucson, Arizona.
On or about August 8, 2025, the Registrar received a Complaint against Respondent from Complainant alleging poor work with respect to project.
The Registrar assigned the complaint to Investigator Gregory Johndrow. The jobsite inspection was performed on September 3, 2025.
Investigator Johndrow then issued a Written Directive on or about September 11, 2025, which provided in pertinent 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 Monday, September 29, 2025.
. . .
DIRECTIVE REQUIREMENTS
You are directed to remedy the following violations by the appropriate means:
Complaint Item 2: “the north side where the house and the porch meet need to be repaired covered with membrane and sealed.”
Investigator’s Observations: Verified.
• No flashing was installed in this location, where the shingle roof meets the parapet wall, as required by building code, outlined in the IRC section R903.2.1 (flashing locations).
Governing Rule: A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(2)(b): Departure from or disregard of: (b) A building code... A.R.S. § 32-1154 (A)(3) - R4-9-108(a): Violation of any rule adopted by the registrar; Namely R 4-9- 108(a) A contractor shall perform work in a professional and workmanlike manner.
Complaint Item 3: “repair the section that connects the shingles to the flat roof of the house”
(Complainant’s description of the small section of roof not completed)
Investigator’s Observations: Verified.
• The small roof top section, located on the east side of the residence, was not completed and no work was performed.
Governing Rule: A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(2)(a): Departure from or disregard of: (a) Plans or specifications...
A.R.S. § 32-1154 (A)(3) - R4-9-108(a): Violation of any rule adopted by the registrar; Namely R 4-9- 108(a) A contractor shall perform work in a professional and workmanlike manner.
Complaint Item 4: “remove the portion of the shingles, the metal, and replace the damaged wood on the west porch of the house.”
Investigator’s Observations: Verified.
• The new shingle roof was installed over rotted roof decking and fascia on the west side of the residence.
Governing Rule: A.R.S. § 32-1154 (A)(3) - R4-9-108(a): Violation of any rule adopted by the registrar; Namely R 4-9-108(a) A contractor shall perform work in a professional and workmanlike manner.
Complaint Item 5: “repair needed on the center east side roof, where the roof was not repaired. add a thicker coat to the roof ”
Investigator’s Observations: Verified.
• The section of roof described in this area was not performed according to the contract.
• The contract specifies white elastomeric roof coating was to be used. A silicone based coating was substituted and applied in these areas with no written authorization or change order signed by the complainant.
Governing Rule: A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(2)(a): Departure from or disregard of: (a) Plans or specifications...
ITEMS NOT REQUIRING CORRECTION
The following complaint items require no action by the Respondent:
Complaint Item 1: “a lot of cracked areas and non sealed areas present. these areas need to be repaired and sealed.”
Investigator’s Observations: This allegation is NOT verified. In response to this complaint item: There is not sufficient evidence to find that the Respondent failed to meet minimum workmanship standards per A.A.C. R4-9-108.
Governing Rule: N/A. . .
(All errors contained in original).
On October 14, 2025, Investigator Johndrow performed a Compliance Inspection, and issued his Compliance Notes as follows:
. . .
Respondent Not Present at Compliance Inspection: ☒
. . .
Compliance Findings: The respondent has not taken appropriate corrective action to comply with the Directive.
Governing Rule: A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22): Failure to take appropriate corrective action to comply with this chapter or with the rules adopted pursuant to this chapter...
As stated on Directive: Complaint Item 2: “the north side where the house and the porch meet need to be repaired covered with membrane and sealed.”
. . .
Compliance Inspection Findings for this item: This has NOT been corrected. Some work has been done, however; the current conditions do not meet ROC Workmanship Standards.
Flashing has been installed in this location. However, a visible section of flashing revealed it was not sealed to the side wall. The flashing was not stepped against the side wall in accordance with shingle manufacturer installation requirements.
The granular roofing material installed over the parapet and flashing is not bonded at the north corner of the parapet wall.
Fasteners used to attach the flashing were not sealed.
CORRECTED ☒ NOT CORRECTED
As stated on Directive: Complaint Item 3: “repair the section that connects the shingles to the flat roof of the house” (Complainant’s description of the small section of roof not completed)
. . .
Compliance Inspection Findings for this item: This has been corrected.
☒ CORRECTED ☐ NOT CORRECTED
As stated on Directive: Complaint Item 4: “remove the portion of the shingles, the metal, and replace the damaged wood on the west porch of the house.”
. . .
Compliance Inspection Findings for this item: This has NOT been corrected. Some work has been done, however; the current conditions do not meet ROC Workmanship Standards.
The material used for the roof decking replacement does not match the existing tongue and groove boards.
The material used for the fascia does not match the dimensional size of the previous fascia or the rafters.
CORRECTED ☒ NOT CORRECTED
As stated on Directive: Complaint Item 5: “repair needed on the center east side roof, where the roof was not repaired. add a thicker coat to the roof ”
Investigator’s Observations from initial inspection: Verified.
. . .
Compliance Inspection Findings for this item: This has NOT been corrected. Some work has been done, however; the current conditions do not meet ROC Workmanship Standards.
The new roofing material used over the parapet walls in this location is not properly bonded to the walls. The material is wrinkled, loose and sagging.
The roofing material overlap from the parapet to the flat roof transition is not properly bonded and has visible ply separation in multiple locations.
There is visible ply separation in a least one location of the flat section of roof, located in the area of 2x4 skylight.
The roof has negative drainage and ponding at the roof drain location.
The 2x4 skylight, located above the kitchen leaks.
The drywall, around the interior of the skylights in the kitchen and bathroom, was damaged as a result of the removal of the skylights in these locations.
CORRECTED ☒ NOT CORRECTED
. . .
On October 16, 2025, the Registrar issued a Citation against Respondent, charging possible violations of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(2)(a) and (b); A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(A); and A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22).
On or about October 30, 2025, Respondent submitted an Answer to the Registrar.
On or about November 14, 2025, a Notice of Hearing was issued setting a hearing on December 22, 2025, at the Office of Administrative Hearings, an independent state agency.
After a continuance, the hearing was held on February 3, 2026.
At hearing, Investigator Johndrow testified as to the Registrar’s involvement and the above timeline and findings.
Complainant testified that she was unhappy with the work but did not deny access to the property.
Mr. Ramirez testified that the work was done per the contract and that on July 30, 2025, Complainant denied him an opportunity to inspect the work.
Administrative notice was taken of Respondent’s prior License record on February 18, 2026. Such prior License record reflected that Respondent’s License Nos. 324770 was first issued on June 14, 2019. The License record also reflected that there were two open cases, one of which was the present case.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
This matter lies within the Registrar’s jurisdiction. See A.R.S. § 32-1101 et seq.
Complainant bears the burden of proof to establish Respondent’s statutory violations by a preponderance of the evidence. See A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2); A.A.C. R2-19-119(A) and A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1); see also Vazzano 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 established that Respondent did not materially complete the project in violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(2)(a) and (b), as there was missing flashing, no work was performed on a small area of the east side of the residence, and a silicone based coating was used instead of the elastomeric coating as described in the contract.
The preponderance of the evidence established that there was a violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(A), as the roof, fascia, drip edge needed completion on the south side where the new roof met the old roof and the painting was darker than the original color which was very noticeable.
Finally, the preponderance of the evidence established all items remained incomplete. Therefore, Complainant established that Respondent failed to take appropriate corrective action following a written directive from the Registrar in violation of A.R.S. § 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 Respondent’s License No. 324770 for two business days.
It is further recommended that the Registrar require Respondent to pay the sum of $200.00 as a civil penalty pursuant to A.R.S. § 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 A.R.S. § 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, February 18, 2026.
/s/ Adam D. Stone
Administrative Law Judge
Transmitted by either mail, e-mail, or facsimile to:
Tom Cole, Director
Registrar of Contractors
Neda Lane
[email redacted]
7R Roofing LLC
[email redacted]
By: OAH Staff