ALJDEC - Licensing

2025A-07954-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2026-04-27

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

Anita Maria Smith,

COMPLAINANT,

v.

Fine Finish Paint LLC,

License No. ROC 355213,

RESPONDENT.

No. 2025A-07954-CHC-ROC

SUPPLEMENTAL EXPLANATION TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION DATED JANUARY 3, 2026, PER REGISTRAR’S REQUEST

HEARING: December 16, 2025 at 1:00 PM

APPEARANCES: Complainant Anita Maria Smith appeared on her own behalf. Flor Islava appeared on behalf of Respondent Fine Finish Paint, LLC. Investigator Jeremy Rosenthal appeared on behalf of the Arizona Registrar of Contractors.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Nicole Robinson

EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: Arizona Registrar of Contractors Notice of Hearing Packet (“Packet”). Complainant Exhibit A.

*On March 27, 2026, the Arizona Registrar of Contractors remanded this matter back to the Office of Administrative Hearings for the Administrative Law Judge to issue a supplemental Decision providing additional explanation regarding the recommendation that no suspension be imposed on Respondent. The Findings of Fact and Hearing Evidence sections from the January 3, 2026, Administrative Law Judge Decision are fully adopted in this supplement. The Supplemental Decision is modified in the Conclusions of Law section, as follows:

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. A preponderance of the evidence means “[p]roof which leads the trier of fact to find that the existence of the contested fact is more probable than its nonexistence.”

In this case, the evidence established that Respondent’s work was not in conformity with the Registrar’s standards. Therefore, Complainant established that Respondent did not complete the project in a workmanlike manner in violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely Ariz. Admin. Code R4-9-108(A).

However, this Administrative Law Judge finds Ms. Islava’s testimony credible, in that, Respondent was informed that they could remove everything from the living room walls to prepare and paint. Respondent was completely unaware of the mechanical window blinds sensor. Regardless, Respondent diligently looked for a replacement sensor. As such, Respondent should not be responsible for the replacement of Complainant’s mechanical blinds that cost thousands of dollars to replace. Furthermore, Respondent tried to settle with Complainant and forgo the $11,010.00 still owed to them and Complainant could put that money towards new blinds. However, Complainant chose not to accept that settlement offer.

In addition, the evidence established that Respondent was unable to complete all of the corrective work following the Directive being issued, primarily, because Respondent spent the majority of the directive time researching how to replace the sensor and the mechanical blinds. Therefore, Complainant established that Respondent failed to follow a written directive from the Registrar in violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(22).

Although, a violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely Ariz. Admin. Code R4-9-108(A) and Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(22) were found, this Administrative Law Judge will not recommend suspension or revocation of Respondent’s license. Respondent made a good faith effort to comply with the Written Directive and Complainant still owed Respondent $11,010.00 per the contract with the majority of the work complete. For these reasons, this Administrative Law Judge does not find it appropriate to discipline Respondent’s license.

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Based on the foregoing,

It is recommended that on the effective date of the Order, the Registrar shall not suspend Respondent’s License Nos. 355213 and 355220.

It is further recommended that the Registrar require Respondent to pay the sum of $50.00 as a civil penalty pursuant to 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)(5), unless Respondent tenders payment of any outstanding prior civil penalty.

Done this day, April 27, 2026.

/s/ Nicole Robinson

Administrative Law Judge

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

Tom Cole, Director

Registrar of Contractors

c/o Legal Department

1700 W. Washington Street, Suite 105

Phoenix, AZ 85007

[email redacted]

Fine Finish Paint LLC

3724 W Cypress St

Phoenix, AZ 85009

[email redacted]

[email redacted]

ANITA MARIA SMITH Jeremy Rosenthal

662 W. Aster Court [email redacted]

Chandler, AZ 85248

[email redacted]

By: OAH Staff