ALJDEC - Licensing

2025A-08775-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2026-02-25

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

John Buette,

COMPLAINANT

v.

Joseph Steven Ortiz

DBA: DBA: Certified Floor Covering Installations,

License No. ROC 265760,

RESPONDENT

No. 2025A-08775-CHC-ROC

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION

HEARING: February 10, 2026

APPEARANCES: Complainant John Buette appeared on his own behalf. Joseph Steven Ortiz appeared on his own behalf. Registrar of Contractors Investigator Heath Richards appeared via Google Meet.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Adam D. Stone

EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: Complainant’s Exhibits 1-15 were admitted into evidence.

_____________________________________________________________________

FINDINGS OF FACT

Joseph Steven Ortiz DBA: Certified Floor Covering Installations (Respondent) is the holder of License No. 265760 issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (Registrar).

On or about December 21, 2023, Complainant hired Respondent to install flooring at his residence in Oro Valley, Arizona.

On or about December 23, 2025, the Registrar received a Complaint against Respondent from Complainant alleging poor work with respect to project.

The Registrar assigned the complaint to Investigator Heath Richards. The jobsite inspection was performed on September 20, 2025.

Investigator Richards then issued a Written Directive on or about October 17, 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 Friday, November 7, 2025.

. . .

DIRECTIVE REQUIREMENTS

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

Complaint Item: 2 - Floor out of level in living room.

Investigator’s Observation: During the jobsite inspection, the Complainant pointed out an area in the living room to the right of the slider. The Respondent stated that the area looked high. When the investigator asked approximately how high he thought it was, the Respondent answered 3/16 of an inch. The manufacturer’s requirements are: “the subfloor should be flat and level within 3/16 of an inch per 10-foot radius”.

Using a 4-foot level, I measured a half-inch deviation from flat and level in the area. A third-party report from “Priority One,” provided by the Complainant, found deviations of 5/8 of an inch within a 4-foot radius in this area using a laser level. Both of these measurements exceed the manufacturer’s requirements of flat and level within 3/16 of an inch inside a 10-foot span. Should the deviations prove to be due to subfloor preparation, the flooring installer had accepted the subfloor’s condition. Substantive Policy Statement 2017.01: "As a general principle in construction, a subcontractor who performs work on top of a surface prepared by another accepts the surface. The subcontractor should have inspected the surface for any flaws or defects that would affect the work he proposes before performing the work.” The Respondent shall correct by appropriate means.

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 - The Contractor left the top step of the stairway leading

into main floor bare wood

Investigator’s Observation: At the time of the jobsite inspection, the top step of the back staircase had its carpet removed and was left with bare subflooring. During the jobsite inspection, both parties agreed that the Respondent had removed this carpet and was supposed to finish this step with wood flooring. The contract contains a line item for the "installation of wood on one step.” The Respondent shall complete the work as per the contract or a properly executed change order between the parties

Governing Rule: Violation of any rule adopted by the Registrar; Namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(b): A contractor shall perform all work in accordance with any applicable building codes and professional industry standards. For work to be performed in accordance with professional industry standards, a contractor shall use such skills, prudence, and diligence in performing and completing tasks undertaken that the completed work meets the standards of a similarly licensed contractor possessing ordinary skill and capacity.

A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) - R4-9-108(B) Building Codes/Prof. Industry Standards

Complaint Item: 9 - Wood transition strip into bedroom 2 left loose

Investigator’s Observation: During the jobsite inspection, the Complainant pointed out the transition to bedroom two, where the transition strip could be easily moved vertically on one side by approximately half an inch. Transition strips are typically glued to the floor and should not have excessive movement.

The Respondent shall correct by appropriate means.

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 November 21, 2025, the Registrar issued a Citation against Respondent, charging possible violations of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) – R4-9-108(A), and A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22).

On or about December 3, 2025, Respondent submitted an Answer to the Registrar.

On or about December 23, 2025, a Notice of Hearing was issued setting a hearing on February 10, 2026, at the Office of Administrative Hearings, an independent state agency.

At hearing, Investigator Richards testified as to the Registrar’s involvement and the above timeline and findings. He also testified that there was no compliance jobsite inspection as Respondent did not complete any of the corrective work.

Complainant testified that he believed that there were other workmanship items which were not cited by Investigator Richards. In addition, Complainant testified that once the Directive was issued, Respondent failed to contact him to schedule the corrective work until well after the Directive expired.

Respondent testified that he had no dispute with the Directive. He testified further that unfortunately he experienced a death in his family which caused him to miss the deadline to complete the corrective work.

Administrative notice was taken of Respondent’s prior License record on February 25, 2026. Such prior License record reflected that Respondent’s License No. 265760 was first issued on July 16, 2010. 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).

The preponderance of the evidence established, and Respondent admitted that there was a violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) – R4-9-108(A), as the flooring was not correctly installed.

Finally, the preponderance of the evidence established 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. 265760 for a period of two days.

It is further recommended that the Registrar require Respondent to pay the sum of $350.00 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, February 25, 2026.

/s/ Adam D. Stone

Administrative Law Judge

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

Tom Cole, Director

Registrar of Contractors

John Buette

[email redacted]

Joseph Steven Ortiz

The Design Center by Ortiz

DBA: Certified Floor Covering Installations

[email redacted]

[email redacted]

By: OAH Staff