ALJDEC - Licensing
2025A-08489-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2026-04-29
IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
Thomas M Hughes,
COMPLAINANT
v.
Get Green Contracting LLC
License No. ROC 360292,
RESPONDENT
No. 2025A-08489-CHC-ROC
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION
HEARING: April 15, 2026
APPEARANCES: Complainant Thomas M. Hughes appeared on his own behalf. Jeffrey Jerome Meyers appeared on behalf of Respondent Get Green Contracting LLC. Registrar of Contractors Investigator Todd Anderson appeared via Google Meet.
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Adam D. Stone
EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE:
_____________________________________________________________________
FINDINGS OF FACT
Get Green Contracting LLC (Respondent) is the holder of License No. 360292 issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (Registrar).
On or about April 2, 2025, Complainant hired Respondent to remodel the American Legion Post 44 building in Scottsdale, 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 Todd Anderson. The jobsite inspection was performed on November 26, 2025.
Investigator Anderson then issued a Written Directive on or about December 10, 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 January 2nd, 2026
. . .
DIRECTIVE REQUIREMENTS
You are directed to remedy the following violations by the appropriate means:
Complaint Item: 1 – “Contractor represented that building permit was in process and he undertook major structural work on a load bearing wall without a proper permit or permission from City of Scottsdale Planning Dep't. The City's permitting system shows at no time did contractor even apply for permit prior to undertaking work. He knowingly and deliberately misrepresented to us on multiple occasions that a permit was in process....”
Investigator’s Observation: Verified. At the time of the Jobsite Inspection conducted on November 26th, 2025, the representative for American Legion Post 44 (Thomas Hughes) had advised me that only two items from the Respondent’s scope of contracted work had been completed: the installation of two folding windows located on the north side of the building and a 2’ high exterior pony wall located on the north side of the property. This work was done without a permit. Contractor shall obtain all necessary permits and satisfy all requirements of the local building authorities.
Governing Rule: ARS 32-1154(A)(2)(b) – Departure from or disregard of: (b) A building code of this state or any political subdivision of this state in any material respect that is prejudicial to another.
. . .
(All errors contained in the original).
On February 5, 2026, the Registrar issued a Citation against Respondent, charging possible violations of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(2)(b), and A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22).
On or about February 20, 2026, Respondent submitted an Answer to the Registrar.
On or about March 4, 2026, a Notice of Hearing was issued setting a hearing on April 15, 2026, at the Office of Administrative Hearings, an independent state agency.
At hearing, Investigator Anderson testified as to the Registrar’s involvement and the above timeline and findings. He testified that while Complainant initially filed an Unlicensed Contractor complaint, Respondent subsequently became licensed and that Complainant refiled its Complaint on October 30, 2025. Investigator Anderson also testified that even though Respondent was fired from the project, the proper remedy to the Directive was to coordinate with Complainant to properly complete the permitting process which was never done.
Complainant testified that the project still does not have a completed permit, and that given Mr. Meyers’ experience, he should have known that a permit was required.
Mr. Meyers testified that he had a contact at the permitting office who said he would supply and “over-the-counter” permit for this project, because it was relatively small. Mr. Meyers testified that based upon this, he commenced work. However, Mr. Meyers testified that his contact switched positions, and the “over-the counter” permit was never issued.
Administrative notice was taken of Respondent’s prior License record on May 17, 2021. Such prior License record reflected that Respondent’s License No. 360292 was first issued on July 30, 2025. The license record also 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).
At the outset, the tribunal was concerned with the procedural issues in this case. It was clear that at the time of the contract, Respondent was unlicensed. For reasons beyond the tribunal’s understanding, Complainant was advised to re-file its complaint as a licensed contractor complaint. However, the fact Respondent later became licensed after it was fired, does not change the status of Respondent at the time of the contract.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Based on the foregoing, it is recommended that on the effective date of the Order, the Registrar shall dismiss the licensed complaint against Respondent.
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, April 29, 2026.
/s/ Adam D. Stone
Administrative Law Judge
Transmitted by either mail, e-mail, or facsimile to:
Tom Cole, Director
Registrar of Contractors
Get Green Contracting LLC Jeffrey Jerome Meyers
[email redacted]
Thomas Hughes
[email redacted]
By: OAH Staff