ALJDEC - Licensing
2025A-08297-CHC-ROC-RHG · Registrar of Contractors · 2026-03-24
IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
Jayna Valdez,
COMPLAINANT,
v.
Saguaro Well and Pump LLC,
License No. ROC 311282,
RESPONDENT.
No. 2025A-08297-CHC-ROC-RHG
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION
HEARING: March 5, 2026
APPEARANCES: Complainant Jayna Valdez appeared on her own behalf. Respondent Saguaro Well and Pump LLC did not appear. Arizona Registrar of Contractors Investigator Gregory Johndrow was unavailable to appear as a witness.
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Kay Abramsohn
EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: ROC Notice of Hearing Packet (“Packet”).
FINDINGS OF FACT
Respondent Saguaro Well and Pump LLC is the holder of License No. 311282, CR-53 Water Well Drilling, issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (“Registrar” or “ROC”) in February 2017.
In August 2023, the parties entered into a contract for repair or replacement of a water pump and for installation of two holding tanks. Per agreement, Complainant (and her neighbors) paid Respondent in multiple payments, the last payment on March 21, 2024, with installation to be completed after Respondent received the last payment. The total invoiced amount was stated to be $5,668.83 for installation and the equipment. After the final payment was made, Respondent did not complete the installation of the second holding tank as had been agreed.
On August 1, 2025, Complainant requested a refund from Respondent, having not received the completion of the contract.
On August 17, 2025, the Registrar received a Licensed Complaint Form (Complaint) against Respondent. The Complaint alleged poor work and abandonment by Respondent.
The Registrar assigned the Complaint to Investigator Gregory Johndrow (“Investigator”).
On September 29, 2025, Investigator conducted a jobsite inspection. Respondent failed to appear. At the jobsite inspection, Investigator determined the following information and verifications:
Complaint Item 1: “The Contractor’s owner, Jon Monasmith, agreed to install two water holding tanks for my shared well system, to support two households. Despite my full payment of $5,668.83, only one tank was installed, leaving the work incomplete and in violation of Arizona contracting laws.”
Investigator’s Observations: Verified.
• The second holding tank for the well has not been installed.
Governing Rule: A.R.S. § 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. A.R.S. § 32-1154 (A)(3) - R4-9-108(a): Violation of any rule adopted by the registrar; Namely R 4-9-108(a) A contractor shall perform work in a professional and workmanlike manner.
Complaint Item 2: “ABANDONMENT OF THE CONTRACT-Contractor refuses to perform/complete work after accepting payment.”
Investigator’s Observations: Verified.
• The second holding tank for the well has not been installed.
Governing Rule: A.R.S. § 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 3: “FAILURE TO PERFORM IN A WORKMANLIKE MANNER- Failed to perform work in a good and workmanlike manner.”
Investigator’s Observations: Verified.
• The second holding tank for the well has not been installed.
Governing Rule: A.R.S. § 32-1154 (A)(3) - R4-9-108(a): Violation of any rule adopted by the registrar; Namely R 4-9-108(a) A contractor shall perform work in a professional and workmanlike manner.
Complaint Item 4: “DEPARTURE FROM CONTRACT SPECIFICATIONS- Our agreement explicitly included two bladder tanks but only one installed.”
Investigator’s Observations: Verified.
• The second holding tank for the well has not been installed.
Governing Rule: A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(2)(a): Departure from or disregard of: (a) Plans or specifications...
Complaint Item 5: “MISCONDUCT AND FAILURE TO RESPOND- Contractor has repetitively been unresponsive to text and phone calls, certified letter”
Investigator’s Observations: This statement by the complainant does not implicate a specific workmanship issue, or a specific violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A).
Governing Rule: N/A
On October 1, 2025, the Registrar issued a Citation against Respondent charging possible violations of:
Charge :1 A.R.S. § 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.
Charge :2 A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(2)(a)
Departure from or disregard of: (a) Plans or specifications in any material respect that is prejudicial to another without consent of the owner or the owner's duly authorized representative and without the consent of the person entitled to have the particular construction project or operation completed in accordance with such plans and specifications and code.
Charge :3 A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) - R4-9-108(A)
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.
On October 14, 2025, Respondent emailed the ROC indicating he had closed the business and moved out of Arizona:
I received a voice mail stating I have a citation and response is due by the 16th. I’ve closed the business and left the state. The mail is no longer forwarding, so I’ve received no citation.
On October 28, 2025, Respondent also emailed ROC indicating:
I am not a resident in the state of Arizona. I can make arrangements for somebody to drop off a bladder tank to her property. I forgot his job was left hanging.
Subsequently, ROC noticed the parties for an administrative hearing. However, Complainant was on deployment and unable to attend.
Following the January 7, 2026, issuance of a Final Administrative Decision and Order, Complainant requested that the Registrar set the matter for a rehearing based on her prior good cause unavailability.
The Registrar subsequently referred the matter to the Office of Administrative Hearings (“OAH”), an independent State agency, for a rehearing and issued a Notice of Hearing.
On January 29, 2026, the OAH issued an ORDER advising the parties how to connect to the rehearing virtually via Google Meet.
On the date and at the time set for the continued hearing, Respondent did not appear through an authorized member, employee, or attorney. Because Respondent failed to appear, Respondent did not present any evidence to defend the matter or its license.
Complainant testified that she and her neighbors share a well and that, while Respondent had fixed the pump, he had given them one used holding tank and had not installed the other holding tank.
Administrative notice is taken of Respondent’s License No. 311282 record as of March 24, 2026; Respondent’s license is in revoked status.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The copy of the Notice of Hearing that the Registrar mailed to Respondent at its address and email address of record was reasonable; the same address as found within the administrative record was utilized by OAH to communicate with Respondent. Respondent is deemed to have received notice of the hearing. A.R.S. §§ 41-1092.04 and 41-1092.05(D).
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. R-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 evidence of record established that Respondent’s work was not in conformity with the Registrar’s standards in that Respondent abandoned the project, i.e., failed to complete the work for which it was responsible under the parties’ contract. Therefore, Complainant established that Respondent was in violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(1).
The evidence of record established that Respondent’s work was not in conformity with the Registrar’s standards in that Respondent departed from the plans and specifications without the consent of Complainant, the person entitled to have the work completed. Therefore, Complainant established that Respondent was in violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(2(a).
The evidence of record established that Respondent’s work was not in conformity with the Registrar’s standards in that Respondent failed to perform all work in a professional and workmanlike manner. Therefore, Complainant established that Respondent was in violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(A).
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Based on the foregoing, it is recommended that on the effective date of the Registrar’s Order, the Registrar shall revoke Respondent’s License No. 311282.
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 Administrative Law Judge Decision. If the licensee accepts the Administrative Law Judge Decision, the Administrative Law Judge 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 24, 2026.
/s/ Kay Abramsohn
Administrative Law Judge
Transmitted by either mail, e-mail, or facsimile to:
Tom Cole
Registrar of Contractors
JAYNA VALDEZ
[email redacted]
Saguaro Well and Pump LLC
[email redacted]
By: OAH Staff