ALJDEC - Licensing
2025A-07989-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2026-03-23
IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
Sheri Ann Streeter,
COMPLAINANT,
v.
Oasis Patio Cover LLC,
License No. ROC 316718,
RESPONDENT.
No. 2025A-07989-CHC-ROC
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION
HEARING: February 2, 2026 at 9:00am and March 2, 2026 at 11:00am
APPEARANCES: Complainant Sheri Ann Streeter appeared on her own behalf. Alonso Murillo appeared on behalf of Respondent Oasis Patio Cover, LLC. Investigator Joey Chester 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”). Complainant Exhibits 1 (pages 10-11), 2, 6, 8 (pages 59-80) and 9 (pages 80-88). Respondent Exhibits 2 and 3.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Oasis Patio Cover, LLC (“Respondent”) is the holder of License No. ROC 316718, first issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (“Registrar”) on December 2, 2017.
On or about April 30, 2025, Sheri Ann Streeter (“Complainant”) entered into a contract with Respondent for, among other things, an attached 4K aluminum pergola, privacy wall and a patio cover. The pergola that was attached to the home needed a permit for that part of the project. A permit was not obtained.
The total amount of the project was $36,747.00 and Complainant paid Respondent $15,800.00.
On or about August 10, 2025, the Registrar received a Complaint against Respondent from Complainant alleging poor work and job abandonment with respect to the project.
The Registrar assigned the complaint to Investigator Joey Chester. On September 5, 2025, Investigator Chester conducted a jobsite inspection with both parties present.
On September 17, 2025, after the jobsite inspection, Investigator Chester issued a Written Directive to Respondent that provided 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 Friday, October 10, 2025.
. . . .
DIRECTIVE REQUIREMENTS
You are directed to remedy the following violations by the appropriate means:
Complaint Item 1: - No slope to roof per code as discussed in initial meeting was of great importance, leaks in multiple places,
Investigator’s Observation: At time of inspection verified multiple leaks in patio cover, along with poor workmanship of metal edge of roof. The Respondent will obtain a permit, correct any deficiencies required by the county/city, and pass final permit inspection.
. . . .
Complaint Item 3: - Installed gutter on the inside, then made a makeshift downspout that doesn’t work
Investigator’s Observation: Downspout at time of inspection leaks and runs down patio cover side wall. Red rubbery debris is located inside drain and along edge of patio roof. Respondent will need to correct areas by appropriate means.
. . . .
Complaint Item 4: - Changed scope and rendering of plans number of lights and positioning without consulting first
Investigator’s Observation: Contract and renderings show 8 lights under patio cover, only 7 lights installed, Respondent shall complete project per original contract agreement, properly executed change orders, verbal agreements, local building codes and manufacturers installation instructions.
. . . .
Complaint Item 5: - cause substantial damage to my brand new landscaping did all cutting of 4K aluminum without protecting yard with tarps
Investigator’s Observation: At time of inspection verified metal shavings still located in turf, respondent will need to correct by appropriate means.
. . . .
Complaint Item 6: - Damaged my travertine paver decking, damage my paper walkway damage, my Turf
Investigator’s Observation: Travertine under patio shows signs of staining that were not on pavers prior to work, not enough evidence to verify if walkway paver was cracked prior to work. Respondent will need to correct paver under patio by appropriate means.
. . . .
Following the issuance of the Written Directive, On September 29, 2025, Investigator Chester issued an Amended Written Directive which contained the same deadline date and complaint items that needed correction.
On October 21, 2025, the Registrar issued a Citation against Respondent, charging possible violations of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(2)(a); Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely Ariz. Admin. Code R4-9-108(A); and Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(22).
Hearing Evidence
Alonso Murillo, Respondent’s Qualifying Party, testified that “I am aware a permit was needed,” however, he deferred to Complainant. Mr. Murillo argued that Complainant did not want to pay approximately $1,600.00 to pull a permit due to a time crunch of wanting to get the backyard finished. Complainant testified that she never informed Mr. Murillo not to obtain a permit.
Mr. Murillo admitted that while waiting for a permit to be pulled, he could have completed the other complaint items in the Written Directive, which were minor in scope. Mr. Murillo testified that he had no issues with Complainant until he asked for the balance of the contract and after that, Complainant expressed concerns.
Mr. Murillo testified that Complaint Item 4, he ultimately placed that panel without the eighth light which were per the plans because it looked better with only seven lights. Mr. Murillo testified that having the seventh light dead center wound up being the best option and adding the eighth light would not have illuminated properly. Complainant testified that she did not agree to not having the 8th light installed.
Mr. Murillo further testified that Complaint Items 3, 5, and 6 were easy fixes and that there were only a few metal shavings in the turf.
Administrative notice is taken of Respondent’s prior License record on March 2, 2026. Such prior License record reflected that Respondent’s License No. ROC 316718 was Active. Such prior License record reflected no discipline against Respondent’s license.
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 was clear that this job required a permit. Ultimately, obtaining a permit prior to doing the work must rest with the licensed contractor. If the licensed contractor decides to move forward without a permit, its license can be affected. As such, the evidence established that Respondent did not complete the project in accordance with the plans without Complainant’s consent or the applicable building code in a manner that was prejudicial to Complainant. Therefore, Complainant established that Respondent departed from or disregarded the plans or applicable building code in violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(2)(a) or (b).
Furthermore, 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).
Lastly, the evidence established that Respondent did not complete the corrective work following the Directive being issued. Therefore, Complainant established that Respondent failed to take appropriate corrective action following a written directive from the Registrar in violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 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. ROC 316718 for a period of one day.
It is further recommended that the Registrar require Respondent to pay the sum of $125.00 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.
Pursuant to Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 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, March 23, 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]
Joey Chester
[email redacted]
Oasis Patio Cover LLC
5115 N Dysart Rd Ste 202 #252
Litchfield Park, AZ 85340-3036
[email redacted]
Sheri Ann Streeter
18172 West Daley Lane
Surprise, AZ 85387
[email redacted]
By: OAH Staff