ALJDEC - Licensing
2025A-08477-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2026-02-05
IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
Jacqui Bybee,
COMPLAINANT
v.
Pearson Electrical Of Arizona LLC
License No. ROC 327937,
RESPONDENT
No. 2025A-08477-CHC-ROC
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION
HEARING: December 31, 2025.
APPEARANCES:
Complainant: Jacqui Bybee
Respondent: Brian Pearson
Registrar of Contractors: James Carter, Investigator
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Nedra-Su Kawasaki
EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: Administrative notice was taken of the Notice of Hearing Packet submitted by the Registrar of Contractors.
_____________________________________________________________________
FINDINGS OF FACT
Pearson Electrical of Arizona, LLC (Respondent) was the holder of License No. 327937 issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (Registrar) on February 28, 2020.
On or about June 21, 2024, Jacqui Bybee (Complainant) entered into a contract for installation of a Tesla wall connector charger.
On or about August 21, 2025, Complainant filed a Licensed Complaint Form with the Registrar, claiming poor work.
The Registrar assigned the complaint to Investigator James Carter, who issued a Jobsite Inspection Notice on September 4, 2025, scheduling the inspection for September 26, 2025.
Investigator Carter conducted the jobsite inspection on September 26, 2025, and Respondent was present. Following the inspection, Investigator Carter issued a Written Directive From the Registrar to Respondent on September 26, 2025, that provided as follows:
You are directed to remedy the following violations by the appropriate means:
Complaint Item: 1 - The Tesla charger was improperly installed and caused irreparable damage to our entire electrical panel.
Investigator’s Observation: Verified. I confirmed that there was damaged to the breaker that was installed and that no permit was acquired through the local municipality. The Respondent will obtain a permit, correct any deficiencies required by the county/city, and pass final permit inspection.
The Written Directive required Respondent to notify Investigator Carter of Respondent’s compliance with the directive prior to 5:00 p.m. on October 17, 2025.
On October 21, 2025, Complainant informed Investigator Carter that no corrective work had been performed.
On October 28, 2025, the Registrar issued a Citation against Respondent, finding cause to charge Respondent with violations of A.R.S. §§ 32-1154(A)(2)(b); 32-1154(A)(3), namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(A); 32-1154(A)(9)(c), and 32-1154(A)(22).
Respondent submitted an Answer to the Citation on November 10, 2025. Respondent’s Answer asserted that Respondent was still gathering information; however, the system was properly installed and enjoyed for two years. Further, the breaker panel had accumulated dust over those two years and needed cleaning. No damage was caused to any other circuits as the charger was turned off. Additionally, Respondent was working on getting the permit for installation.
The Registrar referred the matter to the Office of Administrative Hearings, an independent state agency, for an evidentiary hearing.
On November 24, 2025, the Registrar issued a Notice of Hearing on Contested Case setting the hearing for December 31, 2025.
The hearing was held via Google Meet on December 31, 2025.
Investigator Carter testified in support of his jobsite inspection findings, the Written Directive, compliance inspection findings, and the Citation. Specifically, on review Investigator Carter noticed that Complainant’s contract was with Smart Charge America, but the complaint was filed against Pearson Electrical. Investigator Carter contacted both parties for clarification. Complainant stated she filed the complaint under the ROC license number found on the contract and she had never heard of Pearson Electrical. Respondent informed Investigator Carter that he worked with Smart Charge America installing Tesla chargers. Smart Charge America sold the chargers and completed the contracts, while Respondent performed the installation. On September 4, 2025, after contacting Maricopa County, Investigator Carter determined that the required permit had not been obtained. Subsequently, Maricopa County provided a link for Respondent to apply for the permit with lowered fees and faster processing time. On September 29, 2025, Investigator Carter forwarded the link to Respondent. On October 27, 2025, Investigator Carter received an email from Respondent stating he was working on getting the permit and expected it to be completed by the end of the week. Investigator Carter informed Respondent that the matter had already been referred to the legal department for citation.
Complainant testified in agreement with Investigator Carter’s testimony.
Respondent testified that he only provided installation services for Smart Charge America and was unaware they were using his license number on the contracts. Smart Charge America had always obtained any required permits previously, so Respondent did not know he needed to apply for one in this case.
Smart Charge America is a Texas-based entity.
The contract includes the following clause, “any applicable permits and inspections as required by authority having jurisdiction (county, city, or township) are solely the responsibility of the customer to acquire up front at additional cost prior to services being rendered.”
Administrative notice was taken of Respondent’s prior License record on December 30, 2025. According to that record, Respondent’s License No. 327937 was Active; and there was one open complaint (instant matter), no disciplined cases, and no resolved/settled complaints 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. Respondent bears the burden of proof to establish an affirmative defense 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.”
In the instant matter, Complainant contracted with Smart Charge America to have a Tesla charger installed at her home and Respondent performed the installation. After a year, the charger ceased to function, and a third-party inspection determined there was damage to the electrical panel due to improper installation of the charger.
Respondent argued that he did not know he was responsible for obtaining the permit, because Smart Charge America had always done so previously. While the undersigned ALJ makes no determination as to the legality or enforceability of any clause within the Smart Charge America contract, it is noted that Smart Charge America was not an Arizona based company and its contract specifically stated that permitting is the responsibility of the customer. Additionally, without regard to which party was responsible for obtaining the permit, it is incumbent on Respondent to ensure all proper permits were obtained prior to beginning work. Thus, the undersigned ALJ is unpersuaded by Respondent’s argument to the contrary.
Additionally, though Respondent admitted it was he who installed the charger, he was unaware that Smart Charge America had provided his license number on the contract. Smart Charge America only sold the charger to Complainant and did not perform any unlicensed work.
The preponderance of the evidence established that Respondent departed from or disregarded a building code in violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(2)(b), specifically failing to obtain a required permit.
The preponderance of the evidence established that Respondent failed to perform all work in a professional and workmanlike manner in violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(A), as it was determined by a third party that the damage was caused due to improper installation of the charger.
The preponderance of the evidence did not establish that Respondent attempted to evade the Registrar’s statutes by allowing Smart Charge America to use Respondent’s license in violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(9).
The preponderance of the evidence 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 for one business day, Respondent’s License No. 327937.
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, February 5, 2026.
/s/ Nedra-Su Kawasaki
Administrative Law Judge
Transmitted by either mail, e-mail, or facsimile to:
Tom Cole, Director
Registrar of Contractors
Pearson Electrical Of Arizona LLC
[email redacted]
James Carter, Investigator
Registrar of Contractors
[email redacted]
Jacqui Bybee
[email redacted]
By: OAH Staff