ALJDEC - Licensing

2025A-08139-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2025-12-04

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

Roxanne Villarreal,

COMPLAINANT,

v.

Storm Pro Roofing, LLC,

License No. ROC 338078,

RESPONDENT.

No. 2025A-08139-CHC-ROC

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION

HEARING: November 19, 2025

APPEARANCES: Complainant Roxanne Villarreal appeared on her own behalf with her husband, Carlos Carrillo. Arizona Registrar of Contractors Investigator Ruben Perez appeared as a witness. Respondent Storm Pro Roofing, LLC failed to appear.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Sondra J. Vanella

EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: None; Administrative Notice taken of Agency Record

FINDINGS OF FACT

Storm Pro Roofing, LLC (“Respondent”) is the holder of a Specialty Dual CR-42 Roofing License Number 338078 issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (“Registrar”).

On or about April 4, 2025, Roxanne Villarreal (“Complainant”) contracted with Respondent for Respondent to perform landscaping work at Complainant’s home, including the installation of cement pavers, artificial turf, a retaining wall, four tons of rock, a planter, and outdoor lighting. The total contract price for Respondent’s scope of work was $12,650.00. Complainant paid Respondent a down payment of $650.00 and financed the balance of $12,000.00.

On or about August 18, 2025, the Registrar received a Complaint against Respondent from Complainant alleging abandonment and poor work with respect to Respondent’s scope of work.

The Registrar assigned the Complaint to Investigator Ruben Perez. After a September 3, 2025 Jobsite Inspection, Investigator Perez issued a Written Directive to Respondent dated September 4, 2025, 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, September 19th, 2025.

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

Complaint Item 1: The project was financed, but the work is incomplete. I not sure if the Financial services paid them

Investigator’s Observation: Complainant reported pavers were to be installed from front door to in front of double gate (West Side). Pavers were observed partially installed in front of front door only. Written contract reads, “Paver driveway extension & steps and walkway”. Respondent to correct by appropriate means.

Complaint Item 2: Nothing is leveled properly

Investigator’s Observation: Pavers in front yard West side were observed installed up to 3⁄4” higher than sidewalk (lippage). Pavers on front yard East side of driveway were observed incomplete. Respondent to correct by appropriate means.

Complaint Item 4: Lights that should have been installed were not The work that was done is poorly executed. There are exposed electrical wires

Investigator’s Observation: Lights at concrete steps and lights at planters were observed not fully installed. Written contract reads, “outdoor lighting”. Respondent to correct by appropriate means.

Complaint Item 5: The artificial grass is in pieces and not installed.

Investigator’s Observation: Synthetic grass in front yard was observed not fully installed. Respondent to correct by appropriate means.

ITEMS NOT REQUIRING CORRECTION

The following complaint items require no action by the Respondent:

Complaint Item 3: Sprinklers were not installed.

Investigator’s Observation: Irrigation system was observed not installed. Irrigation was not included in written contract.

Complaint Item 6: He took plants that never came back Those plants were paid for with our own money.

Investigator’s Observation: Complainant reported plants were planted and removed by respondent. Planters were observed with some plants missing. Written contract does not include anything about plants. The Registrar is unable to make a determination with this item.

Complaint Item 7: Many areas remain unfinished and unsafe. The materials used are not up to standard The workmanship does not meet the agreed quality. Several promised items were omitted Overall, the project is far from what was contracted we provided him with cash to buy additional plants, lights and we dont have them We have witnessed that saw the worker take material to another house we was working with we

provided him with cash to buy additional plants, lights and we dont have them

Investigator’s Observation: These items were addressed in previous compliance items.

All errors in original.

Investigator Perez conducted a Compliance Jobsite Inspection on October 2, 2025, at which he observed that Respondent did not comply with the Written Directive, as all of the items ordered to be corrected remained in the same condition as observed at the initial Jobsite Inspection.

Thereafter, Investigator Perez forwarded the matter to the Registrar’s Legal Department. The Registrar issued a Citation against Respondent charging possible violations of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(1), A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(a), A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(12), namely A.R.S. § 32-1158, A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(16), and A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22).

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

On October 17, 2025, the Registrar issued the Notice of Hearing advising the parties of the hearing date and time of November 19, 2025, at 1:00 p.m., and that the Office of Administrative Hearings would issue a Google Meet link for participation in the hearing. The Notice of Hearing was sent to Respondent’s mailing and email addresses of record with the Registrar.

On October 27, 2025, the Tribunal issued to the parties an Order containing the Google Meet information to join the hearing by video or phone.

On the date and at the time set for hearing, Complainant appeared on her own behalf, with her husband, Carlos Carrillo. Investigator Perez was also present. Respondent did not appear through an authorized member, employee, or attorney. Respondent did not request that the hearing be continued. Because Respondent failed to appear, Respondent did not present any evidence to defend its license.

Investigator Perez testified consistently with his findings contained in the Written Directive and the Compliance Jobsite Inspection Notes. Investigator Perez testified that Respondent’s contract document does not contain Respondent’s name, mailing address, license number, estimated completion date, or information concerning how to file a complaint with the Registrar.

Investigator Perez also testified that Respondent’s license classification is limited to roofing, and that Respondent is not licensed to perform landscaping.

Investigator Perez testified that he has had no communication from Respondent and Respondent did not attend either the Jobsite Inspection or the Compliance Jobsite Inspection.

Complainant agreed with Investigator Perez’s testimony. Complainant testified that Respondent was paid in full by the financial institution and that she paid Respondent an additional $400.00 for plants.

Administrative notice is taken of Respondent’s prior License record on December 3, 2025. Such prior License record reflects that Respondent’s License Number 338078 was first issued on May 9, 2022, and is revoked. Such prior License record also reflects that there are three open complaints, including the instant Complaint, no resolved/settled complaints, and one complaint resulting in 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 is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.”

The credible and uncontroverted evidence of record established that Respondent did not complete the work it contracted to perform. Therefore, Complainant established that Respondent abandoned its contract with Complainant without legal excuse, in violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(1).

The credible and uncontroverted evidence of record 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 professional and workmanlike manner in violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(a).

The credible and uncontroverted evidence of record established that Respondent’s written contract for the project did not contain all of the statutorily required elements for written contracts. Therefore, Complainant established that Respondent failed to comply with the Registrar’s statute in violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(12).

The credible and uncontroverted evidence established that Respondent contracted for and performed work for which it was not licensed to perform. Therefore, Complainant established that Respondent knowingly contracted beyond the scope of its license in violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(16).

The credible and uncontroverted evidence established that Respondent did not complete the corrective work following the issuance of the Written Directive and that valid justification for such failure did not exist. 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 revoke Respondent’s License Number 338078.

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, December 4, 2025.

/s/ Sondra J. Vanella

Administrative Law Judge

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

Tom Cole, Director

Registrar of Contractors

Storm Pro Roofing, LLC

[email redacted]

Roxanne Villarreal

[email redacted]

Ruben Perez

[email redacted]

By: OAH Staff