ALJDEC - Licensing

2025A-08860-NPC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2025-12-08

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

White Cap LP,

COMPLAINANT,

v.

HDConcrete LLC,

License No. ROC 338964,

RESPONDENT.

No. 2025A-08860-NPC-ROC

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION

HEARING: November 18, 2025

APPEARANCES: Yashica Dettman represented White Cap LP. Hunter Tietjen represented HDConcrete LLC.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Kay A. Abramsohn

EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: Notice of Hearing Packet (“Packet”).

_____________________________________________________________________

FINDINGS OF FACT

HDConcrete LLC (“Respondent”) is the holder of License No. 338964 issued by the Registrar of Contractors (“Registrar” or “ROC”).

On August 29, 2025, the ROC received from White Cap LP (“Complainant”) a Non-Payment Complaint Form (“Complaint”) alleging that Respondent had failed to pay Complainant on multiple invoices from April 2025 through June 30, 2025 in the total amount of $9,039.38.

On September 22, 2025, ROC issued its Citation citing Respondent for alleged violation of Arizona Revised Statute (“Ariz. Rev. Stat.”) § 32-1154(A)(10) for failure to pay monies in excess of $750.00 when due for services rendered.

On October 2, 2025, Respondent filed an Answer to the Citation. In its answer, Respondent acknowledged the balance due to Complainant. Respondent indicated that it was awaiting a retention payment on a particular project and would be applying those funds, once received, to the balance due to Complainant.

The Complaint was not resolved informally and the ROC subsequently set the matter for hearing at the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings (“OAH”).

At hearing, Complainant noted that it had not received any payment from Respondent since May of 2025.

At hearing, Respondent again acknowledged the debt. Respondent stated that he had received the retention check he had been expecting but that general contractor had retained an amount which Respondent owed to another contractor/vendor, and he had only received 10% of what he had been expecting.

Since the date of the hearing, Complainant has not advised the Tribunal that the matter was resolved to that the parties were able to finalize a settlement.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

This matter lies within the Registrar’s jurisdiction and has been properly brought before OAH for adjudication.

The purpose of the Registrar’s licensing statutes is to protect the public from unscrupulous, unqualified, and financially irresponsible contractors.

The Registrar may resolve contractual disputes if such resolution is ancillary to its regulatory mission and may penalize a contractor’s license by ordering payment of restitution if a proven statutory violation was not remedied by corrective action.

Unless otherwise provided by law, a party asserting a claim, right, or entitlement bears the burden of proof; a party asserting an affirmative defense has the burden of establishing the affirmative defense. The standard of proof on all issues in this matter is that of 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.” A preponderance of the evidence is “[t]he greater weight of the evidence, not necessarily established by the greater number of witnesses testifying to a fact but by evidence that has the most convincing force; superior evidentiary weight that, though not sufficient to free the mind wholly from all reasonable doubt, is still sufficient to incline a fair and impartial mind to one side of the issue rather than the other.”

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 hearing evidence established that Respondent had been invoiced a net total of $9,039.38 owed to Complainant for services performed.

Respondent failed to demonstrate and support any statutory justification or excuse for failing to issue payment to Complainant. Respondent failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that it lacked the ability to pay Complainant for the services performed by Complainant.

Based on the hearing record, Complainant established that Respondent violated Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(10) by failing to pay Complainant $9,039.38 for services obtained from Complainant 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, on the effective date of the Registrar’s final order, the Registrar suspend Respondent HDConcrete LLP’s License No. 338964 until Respondent has provided to the Registrar, and the Registrar has accepted, documents which establish that Respondent has paid Complainant $9,039.38 in certified funds.

It is further recommended that when and if the Registrar does receive and accept Respondent’s evidence that Respondent has paid Complainant $9,039.38 in certified funds, the Registrar shall close the matter.

No future license shall be issued to any entity consisting of persons associated with Respondent, as defined in Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1101(A)(7), unless Respondent tenders payment of the outstanding $9,039.38 to Complainant.

Pursuant to Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 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, December 8, 2025.

/s/ Kay A. Abramsohn

Administrative Law Judge

Transmitted electronically to:

Tom Cole, Director

Registrar of Contractors

HDConcrete LLC

[email redacted]

[email redacted]

White Cap LP

[email redacted]

By: OAH Staff