ALJDEC - Licensing

2025A-08613-NPC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2026-05-18

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

Myght Construction LLC,

COMPLAINANT

v.

Imperio Construction Inc,

License No. ROC 301472,

RESPONDENT

No. 2025A-08613-NPC-ROC

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION

HEARING: April 30, 2026

APPEARANCES: Vanessa Valenzuela on behalf of Complainant Myght Construction LLC. Ruth Danino on behalf of Respondent Imperio Construction Inc

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Fahd Nazir

EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: Administrative notice was taken of the hearing packet submitted by the Registrar of Contractors. Complainant Exhibits A, C, I, J, K, L, N, and R. Respondent Exhibits A, B, C, D, and E.

FINDINGS OF FACT

Imperio Construction Inc. (Respondent) is the holder of License No. 301472 issued by the Registrar of Contractors (Registrar).

On or about July 13, 2022, Myght Construction LLC (Complainant) contracted with Respondent for, among other things, installation of over 10,000 square feet of one-inch-thick cell foam and elastomeric (acrylic) base coat at one gallon per square foot with five-year warranty.

It is undisputed that the project was completed in phases between 2022 and 2025.

On or about August 25, 2025, Complainant filed a Complaint against Respondent with the Registrar alleging that Respondent had failed to pay Complainant the sum of $48,760.95.

The parties were unable to resolve their differences, and Complainant requested an administrative hearing. The Registrar then issued a Citation alleging a possible violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(10).

Complainant through its witness, Ms. Valenzuela, testified that the total outstanding balance due at the time of the hearing was $38,760.95. The witness testified that all written and orally contracted work was performed in full.

Ms. Valenzuela contended that, despite no clear written contract for subsequent work, all the work that was performed during various phases was in accordance with the terms of the original written contract. As such, the roofing system had one-inch-thick cell foam and acrylic base coat at one gallon per square foot.

Respondent through its witness, Ms. Danino, testified that no outstanding amount was due because Complainant incorrectly installed the roofing system. Namely, Complainant did not spray one-inch base insulation foam and/or apply acrylic base coat “twice” on all buildings.

Ms. Danino contended that the parties did not have a written agreement and that the outstanding amount claimed by Complainant was “in overage” by at least $5,181.80. As such, 1,993 square feet billed over the contract amount.

At the hearing, Complainant indicated that the parties used an independent roof consulting expert to verify and evaluate the viability of the roofing system. Respondent did not pursue a workmanship complaint with the Registrar of Contractors.

The independent roof assessment stated, in pertinent part, the following:

Spray Foam:

Probes were taken at the slit sample locations to verify the spray foam thickness. It was confirmed that all 17 probes met the minimum 1-inch thickness required by contract documents, building code, and industry standards.

Conclusion:

In conclusion, I believe the roof systems on Buildings D and E can be repaired and remain viable. Overall, the workmanship on Buildings D and E appears to be better than what was observed on Buildings A through C. With targeted repairs—such as sealing penetrations, correcting detailing at hooded jacks and conduit supports, addressing isolated texture issues, improving drainage details where needed, and applying additional coatings to meet the minimum contract requirements—the roofs should perform as intended. Once completed, the roofs should remain serviceable with routine annual maintenance.

The credible evidence presented at hearing established that Complainant performed all the work it was contracted to perform.

Complainant contended the five-year warranty would be extended, as per terms of the original contract, once the contract price was paid in full.

Respondent did not assert that it lacked the capacity to pay the amount Complainant asserted was due.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

The burden of proof at an administrative hearing falls to the party asserting a claim, right, or entitlement and the standard of proof on all issues in these matters is 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.”

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(10) includes among the grounds for suspension, revocation, or other disciplinary action against a contractor’s license,

[f]ailure by a licensee or agent or official of a licensee to pay monies in excess of $750 when due for materials or services rendered in connection with the licensee's operations as a contractor unless the licensee proves that the licensee lacks the capacity to pay and has not received sufficient monies as payment for the particular construction work project or operation for which the services or materials were rendered or purchased.

The evidence established that Respondent owed a total of $38,760.95. Although the parties provided conflicting testimony as to scope of the contract, and given Respondent’s overall position as to lack of a written, enforceable contract, the greater weight of evidence supports a finding that there was a contract by performance and that Complaint performed the work, as agreed by the parties between 2022 and 2025.

At the hearing, Respondent did not present any evidence to support a finding of inability to pay. As such, Respondent failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that it lacked the ability to pay Complainant for the work performed.

Therefore, Complainant established that Respondent violated Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(10) by failing to pay Complainant $38,760.95 for services or materials rendered in connection with Respondent’s contracting business.

Based upon Respondent’s violation of the provisions of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(10), grounds exist to impose discipline against Respondent’s license

RECOMMENDed order

Based on the foregoing, it is recommended that the Registrar suspend Respondent’s License No: 301472 issued by the Registrar until Complainant has provided to the Registrar, and the Registrar has accepted documents that establish that Respondent has paid Complainant $38,760.95 in certified funds.

It is further recommended that when and if the Registrar receives and accepts Respondent’s evidence that it has paid Complainant $38,760.95 in certified funds, the Registrar may close the Complaint in Case No. 2025-08613.

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, May 18, 2026.

/s/ Fahd Nazir

Administrative Law Judge

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

Tom Cole, Director

Registrar of Contractors

Myght Construction LLC

[email redacted]

Imperio Construction Inc

[email redacted]

By: OAH Staff