ALJDEC - Licensing

2025A-08151-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2026-01-14

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

Lissette Len

COMPLAINANT,

v.

Gate Keeper Services LLC

License No. ROC 336604,

RESPONDENT.

No. 2025A-08151-CHC-ROC

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION

HEARING: January 5, 2026

APPEARANCES: Lisette Lent (Complainant) appeared on behalf of herself. Sean Rogers appeared on behalf of Gate Keeper Services, LLC (Respondent).

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Velva Moses-Thompson

_____________________________________________________________________

FINDINGS OF FACT

On or about October 25, 2024, Respondent agreed to build a casita for

Complainant, for the amount of $18,098.71.

Complainant paid Respondent $18,098.79 for the project.

Respondent started work on or about November 7, 2024.

Respondent last worked on April 29, 2025.

On or about August 13, 2025, the Arizona Registrar of Contractors

(Registrar) received a complaint alleging that Respondent failed to complete the project.

On or about October 1, 2025, an investigator from the Registrar, Aaron

King (Investigator King), conducted a job-site inspection. During the job-site inspection, Investigator King substantiated most of the complaint items.

On October 3, 2025, the Registrar issued a Directive against Respondent’s

license requiring that Respondent corrective the items that Investigator King substantiated at the job-site inspection. The October 3, 2025 Directive provided, in relevant 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 Wednesday, October 22nd, 2025.

RESTRICTIONS

You may not perform or hire other contractors to perform work that is outside the scope of your license.

If your license is currently suspended for administrative reasons1, or is inactive, expired, or cancelled, you may not perform any corrective work nor contract in any manner, which includes hiring other contractors to perform work, until the suspension of your license(s) has been lifted or your license(s) has been reactivated.

DIRECTIVE REQUIREMENTS

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

Complaint Item: 1- Casita was started and never complete

Investigator’s Observation: On-site conditions and timeline show no substantial

work after April 29, 2025, and the project remained incomplete when the Complainant halted access on June 3, 2025; prior to that halt there was initial work, then delayed material progress beyond site clean-up. The preponderance of evidence supports abandonment of the contracted scope. The Respondent’s classification (CR-60 – Finish Carpentry) does not authorize self-performance or prime contracting of the scopes implicated here. The Respondent shall not personally complete or subcontract these out of scope repairs under their license. To cure the abandonment, the Respondent must resolve this by the appropriate means. No further out-of-scope work may be performed under the Respondent’s license.

Governing Rule: Workmanship Rule: ARS §32-1154 (A)(1) Abandonment of contract or refusal to perform after submitting a bid on work without legal excuse for the abandonment or refusal.

Complaint Item: 2- Poor workmanship on flooring

Investigator’s Observation: The flooring work is incomplete, so a workmanship

determination cannot be make; however, the lack of progress between April 29 clean up by the Respondent as the last known work, and June 3 establishes abandonment as the cause of incompletion. The Respondent’s classification (CR-60 – Finish Carpentry) does not authorize self-performance or prime contracting of the scopes implicated here. The Respondent shall not personally complete or subcontract these out of scope repairs under their license. To cure the abandonment, the Respondent must resolve this by the appropriate means. No further out-of-scope work may be performed under the Respondent’s license.

Governing Rule: Workmanship Rule: ARS §32-1154 (A)(1) Abandonment of a

contract or refusal to perform after submitting a bid on work without legal excuse for the abandonment or refusal.

Complaint Item: 4- front porch has fallen

Investigator’s Observation: The front porch was observed partially failed and

deteriorating; given the prolonged inactivity after April 29, the condition is

consistent with abandonment leading to disrepair. The Respondent’s classification (CR-60 – Finish Carpentry) does not authorize self-performance or prime contracting of the scopes implicated here. The Respondent shall not personally complete or subcontract these out of scope repairs under their license. To cure the abandonment, the Respondent must resolve this by the appropriate means. No further out-of-scope work may be performed under the Respondent’s license.

Governing Rule: Workmanship Rule: ARS §32-1154 (A)(1) Abandonment of a

contract or refusal to perform after submitting a bid on work without legal excuse for the abandonment or refusal.

Complaint Item: 5- roof was not attached properly

Investigator’s Observation: Observed fastening attachment concerns were noted;

however, the roof assembly is incomplete, preventing a final workmanship judgment. The lack of progress through June 3 supports abandonment as the operative finding. The Respondent’s classification (CR-60 – Finish Carpentry) does not authorize self performance or prime contracting of the scopes implicated here. The Respondent shall not personally complete or subcontract these out of scope repairs under their license. To cure the abandonment, the Respondent must resolve this by the appropriate means. No further out-of-scope work may be performed under the Respondent’s license.

Governing Rule: Workmanship Rule: ARS §32-1154 (A)(1) Abandonment of a

contract or refusal to perform after submitting a bid on work without legal excuse for the abandonment or refusal.

Complaint Item: 6- joists are not to code

Investigator’s Observation: No plans, measurements, or field data were provided to substantiate a code deviation for joists. On this complaint, a workmanship/code violation is not verified. The project remains in an incomplete status and workmanship is unable to be evaluated until it is in a completed status. The work is unable to be completed due to the abandonment and as the complaint was launched for abandonment, not poor work, the issue remains encompassed as incomplete due to abandonment. The Respondent’s classification (CR-60 – Finish Carpentry) does not authorize self-performance or prime contracting of the scopes implicated here. The Respondent shall not personally complete or subcontract these out of scope repairs under their license. To cure the abandonment, the Respondent must resolve

this by the appropriate means. No further out-of-scope work may be performed under the Respondent’s license.

Governing Rule: Workmanship Rule: ARS §32-1154 (A)(1) Abandonment of acontract or refusal to perform after submitting a bid on work without legal excuse for the abandonment or refusal.

Complaint Item: 7- stairs are unsafe and not to code

Investigator’s Observation: Field observation indicated noncompliant geometry

(riser high and tread narrow) relative to IRC R311.7 (typical limits: max riser 7-3/4

in., min tread 10 in., uniformity limits), but the stair is incomplete, so correction

cannot be enforced as workmanship at this time; the lack of progress supports

abandonment. The Respondent’s classification (CR-60 – Finish Carpentry) does not authorize self-performance or prime contracting of the scopes implicated here. The Respondent shall not personally complete or subcontract these out of scope repairs under their license. To cure the abandonment, the Respondent must resolve this by the appropriate means. No further out-of-scope work may be performed under the Respondent’s license.

Governing Rule: Workmanship Rule: ARS §32-1154 (A)(1) Abandonment of a

contract or refusal to perform after submitting a bid on work without legal excuse for the abandonment or refusal.

Complaint Item: 8- welding was not done correctly or finished

Investigator’s Observation: The welded elements are incomplete and cannot be evaluated to a finished standard; the absence of progress prior to June 3 supports a finding of abandonment rather than completed workmanship. The Respondent’s classification (CR-60 – Finish Carpentry) does not authorize self-performance or prime contracting of the scopes implicated here. The Respondent shall not personally complete or subcontract these out of scope repairs under their license. To cure the abandonment, the Respondent must resolve this by the appropriate means. No further out-of-scope work may be performed under the Respondent’s license.

Governing Rule: Workmanship Rule: ARS §32-1154 (A)(1) Abandonment of a

contract or refusal to perform after submitting a bid on work without legal excuse for the abandonment or refusal.

Complaint Item: 9- nails are not secure

Investigator’s Observation: Fastener concerns were noted on incomplete

assemblies; without completion, a workmanship determination is premature. The

documented inactivity supports abandonment as the correct finding due to the

allegation and preponderance of evidence. The Respondent’s classification (CR-60 –Finish Carpentry) does not authorize self-performance or prime contracting of the scopes implicated here. The Respondent shall not personally complete or

subcontract these out of scope repairs under their license. To cure the abandonment, the Respondent must resolve this by the appropriate means. No further out-of-scope work may be performed under the Respondent’s license.

Governing Rule: Workmanship Rule: ARS §32-1154 (A)(1) Abandonment of a

contract or refusal to perform after submitting a bid on work without legal excuse for the abandonment or refusal.

After the deadline to perform work under the Directive passed,

Complainant informed Investigator King that Respondent performed no corrective work.

On October 29, 2025, the Registrar issued a Citation against

Respondent’s license alleging that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(1) and A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22).

Respondent filed an answer to the Citation.

The matter was referred to the Office of Administrative Hearings for an

evidentiary hearing.

A hearing was held on January 5, 2026.

At hearing, Investigator King testified consistently with the substantiated

Findings shown in the Directive.

Complainant agreed with the findings of Investigator King. A bank

reimbursed Complainant for most of the money that she paid to Respondent for the project.

Mr. Rogers did not dispute Investigator King’s findings. Mr. Rogers

stated that he failed to complete the job due to events that occurred in his personal life. Mr. Rogers stated that he inquired with the Registrar by email for clarity regarding the Directive requirements. Mr. Rogers stated that he received a response that informed him of the date for the hearing.

Administrative notice is taken of the Registrar’s public website. According

to the information available on the website on January 14, 2026, Respondent’s license was first issued on February 9, 2022, and is active. Such prior License record also shows that there is only one open complaint against Respondent. Respondent’s license has never been disciplined. The lack of prior discipline taken is considered a mitigating factor in imposing discipline.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

This matter lies within the Registrar’s jurisdiction. See Ariz. Rev. Stat.

sections 32-1101 et seq.

Complainant bears the burden of proof to establish Respondent’s statutory

violation by a preponderance of the evidence. See Ariz. Rev. Stat. section 41-1092.07(G)(2); A.A.C. R2-19-119(A) and A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1); see also Vazanno 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 shows that Respondent did not

complete the project, which is a violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. section 32-1154(A)(1).

4. The preponderance of the evidence shows that Respondent failed to comply with the Registrar’s Directive without valid justification, which is a violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. section 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 License No. 336604 issued to Gate Keeper Services, LLC, for three days. It is further recommended that the Registrar require Respondent to pay the sum of $250.00 as a civil penalty pursuant to Ariz. Rev. Stat. section 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. section 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, January 14, 2026.

/s/ Velva Moses-Thompson

Administrative Law Judge

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

Tom Cole, Director

Registrar of Contractors

Lissette Lent

[email redacted]

Gate Keeper Services LLC

[email redacted]

By: OAH Staff