ALJDEC - Licensing

2025A-08248-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2026-03-04

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

Gregory Sumner,

COMPLAINANT

v.

UNITED CONSTRUCTION SOLUTIONS, LLC

License No. ROC 350373,

RESPONDENT

No. 2025A-08248-CHC-ROC

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION

HEARING: February 17, 2026

APPEARANCES: Complainant Gregory Sumner appeared on his own behalf. Bryon Rothe appeared on behalf of Respondent United Construction Solutions, LLC. Registrar of Contractors Investigator John Peru appeared via Google Meet.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Adam D. Stone

EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: Complainant’s Exhibit 1 was admitted into evidence.

_____________________________________________________________________

FINDINGS OF FACT

United Construction Solutions LLC (Respondent) is the holder of License No. 350373 issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (Registrar).

On or about July 26, 2024, Complainant hired Respondent to construct a garage at his residence in Phoenix, Arizona.

On or about August 20, 2025, the Registrar received a Complaint against Respondent from Complainant alleging poor work with respect to project.

The Registrar assigned the complaint to Investigator John Peru. The jobsite inspection was performed on September 23, 2025.

Investigator Peru then issued a Written Directive on or about September 29, 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, October 20, 2025.

. . .

DIRECTIVE REQUIREMENTS

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

Complaint Item: 1 - Flange not level and Bathroom floor improperly

prepared to install toilet.

Investigator’s Observation: Verified.

At the time of this inspection, I observed the Toilet Flange excessively recessed, and un-accessible for the toilet installation. REF :( P) 1, (P) 2.

Governing Rule: Violation of any rule adopted by the Registrar; Namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(a): A contractor shall perform all work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) - R4-9-108(A) Workmanship

Complaint Item: 2 - Toilet not installed

Investigator’s Observation: Verified.

At the time of this inspection, I observed the Toilet Flange excessively recessed, and un-accessible for the toilet installation. REF :( P) 1, (P) 2.

Governing Rule: Violation of any rule adopted by the Registrar; Namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(a): A contractor shall perform all work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) - R4-9-108(A) Workmanship

Complaint Item: 3 - Finishes around Windows/Doors per contract not cleaned or completed

Investigator’s Observation: Verified.

At the time of this inspection, I observed unfinished areas around the exterior windows (poorly finished stucco/paint around window frames), and messy areas around the Garage Service Door, where the sealant was applied. REF: (P) 3 through (P) 8.

Governing Rule: Violation of any rule adopted by the Registrar; Namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(a): A contractor shall perform all work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) - R4-9-108(A) Workmanship

Complaint Item: 4 - Bathroom Door frame not plumb vertically or horizontally

Investigator’s Observation: Verified.

At the time of this inspection, I observed the right side of the shower door (tiled wall opening), to be out of plumb (over 1/4" within 78"). The function of the shower door is comprised due to the out of plumb condition. The door wedges in the top area of the door/wall junction, not allowing the door to operate within its normal working capacity. REF :( P) 22, (P) 23.

Governing Rule: Violation of any rule adopted by the Registrar; Namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(a): A contractor shall perform all work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) - R4-9-108(A) Workmanship

Complaint Item: 5 - Gutter trench and French drain not installed

Investigator’s Observation: Verified.

At the time of this inspection, both parties acknowledged that there was no trench/drain installed per contract. REF: (P) 9, (P) 10.

Governing Rule: Violation of any rule adopted by the Registrar; Namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(a): A contractor shall perform all work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) - R4-9-108(A) Workmanship

Complaint Item: 6 - Bathroom vent unprotected (open to the sky) and no vented cap

Investigator’s Observation: Verified.

At the time of this inspection, both parties acknowledged that there was no vented cap installed.

Governing Rule: Violation of any rule adopted by the Registrar; Namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(a): A contractor shall perform all work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) - R4-9-108(A) Workmanship

Complaint Item: 7 - Installed clean-out not finished

Investigator’s Observation: Verified.

At the time of this inspection, both parties acknowledged that the clean-out was not finished. REF: (P) 11.

Governing Rule: Violation of any rule adopted by the Registrar; Namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(a): A contractor shall perform all work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) - R4-9-108(A) Workmanship

Complaint Item: 12 - Stucco finish does not match on south exposure of garage

Investigator’s Observation: Verified.

At the time of this inspection, I observed the exterior stucco wall. Both parties acknowledged that up to 3 different attempts were made (with different entities) to finish the wall correctly. The wall was not uniform. REF: (P) 27

Governing Rule: Violation of any rule adopted by the Registrar; Namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(a): A contractor shall perform all work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) - R4-9-108(A) Workmanship

Complaint Item: 13 - Wood Trim to floor missing next to garage door (Both Sides) to secure garage door opening

Investigator’s Observation: Verified.

At the time of this inspection, I observed the Garage Door to be missing trim coverage at the lower left and lower right corners, leaving open air gaps. REF: (P) 13 through (P) 15.

Governing Rule: Violation of any rule adopted by the Registrar; Namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(a): A contractor shall perform all work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) - R4-9-108(A) Workmanship

Complaint Item: 16 - Concrete chip caused by negligence not repaired

Investigator’s Observation: Verified.

At the time of this inspection, I observed chipped concrete on the edge of the walkway installed by the respondent. REF: (P) 19

Governing Rule: Violation of any rule adopted by the Registrar; Namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(a): A contractor shall perform all work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) - R4-9-108(A) Workmanship

Complaint Item: 17 - No bathroom cabinetry provided per contract

Investigator’s Observation: At the time of this inspection, both parties acknowledged that there was no bathroom cabinetry per contract.

Governing Rule: Violation of any rule adopted by the Registrar; Namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(a): A contractor shall perform all work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) - R4-9-108(A) Workmanship

Complaint Item: 18 - Air Conditioner Compressor secured with shoddy work

Investigator’s Observation: Verified.

At the time of this inspection, I observed the mini-split unit located in the rear, to be crooked. REF: (P) 20, (P) 21.

Governing Rule: Violation of any rule adopted by the Registrar; Namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(a): A contractor shall perform all work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) - R4-9-108(A) Workmanship

Complaint Item: 20 - Stucco unfinished around Electrical Panel

Investigator’s Observation: Verified.

At the time of this inspection, I observed missing /unfinished stucco around the electrical supply panel. REF: (P) 24 through (P) 26.

Governing Rule: Violation of any rule adopted by the Registrar; Namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(a): A contractor shall perform all work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) - R4-9-108(A) Workmanship. . .

On October 27, 2025, the Registrar issued a Citation against Respondent, charging possible violations of 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 November 10, 2025, Respondent submitted an Answer to the Registrar.

On or about November 26, 2025, a Notice of Hearing was issued setting a hearing on January 5, 2026, at the Office of Administrative Hearings, an independent state agency.

After a continuance, the hearing was held on February 17, 2026.

At hearing, Investigator Peru testified as to the Registrar’s involvement and the above timeline and findings. Investigator Peru also testified that no compliance jobsite inspection occurred because Respondent had not done any work once the Directive was issued.

Complainant’s testimony echoed that of Investigator Peru’s. Complainant also added that once the Directive was issued, Respondent never attempted to contact him to perform the corrective work.

Mr. Rothe testified that Complainant was the most deceitful client he had, and that Complainant never made any complaints about his work until it was time to pay the final bill. Mr. Rothe also testified that he did not perform any corrective work once the Directive was issued.

Administrative notice was taken of Respondent’s prior License record on March 4, 2026. Such prior License record reflected that Respondent’s License No. 350373 was first issued on February 16, 2024. The License record also reflected that the license was suspended as of September 2, 2025, due to lack of a qualifying party, Finally, the License record reflected that there was one open case, namely 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 there was a violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(A), as there were numerous workmanship issues at the jobsite.

Finally, the preponderance of the evidence established, and Respondent admitted, that 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. 350373 for five business days.

It is further recommended that the Registrar require Respondent to pay the sum of $500.00 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, March 4, 2026.

/s/ Adam D. Stone

Administrative Law Judge

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

Tom Cole, Director

Registrar of Contractors

UNITED CONSTRUCTION SOLUTIONS, LLC

[email redacted]

[email redacted]

Gregory Sumner

[email redacted]

By: OAH Staff