ALJDEC - Licensing
2025A-08954-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2026-02-11
IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
Fausto Orantes
COMPLAINANT,
v.
TN Holdings, LLC
DBA: Panda Roofing,
License No. ROC 324312,
RESPONDENT.
No. 2025A-08954-CHC-ROC
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION
HEARING: January 22, 2026
APPEARANCES: Justin Castillo, Esq. appeared on behalf of Fausto Orantes
(Mr. Orantes). Nicole Reidhead appeared on behalf of TN Holdings, LLC DBA: Panda Roofing (Panda).
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Velva Moses-Thompson
EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: Panda’s Exhibit 1: The Arizona
Registrar of Contractor’s hearing packet.
_____________________________________________________________________
On December 16, 2026, the Registrar issued a Notice of Hearing setting
the above-captioned matter for hearing on January 22, 2026, at the Office of Administrative Hearings in Phoenix, Arizona.
A hearing was held on January 22, 2026.
The Notice of Hearing shows that the hearing was set to consider the
charges made in the complaint and citation that were served on Panda on November 10, 2025.
At hearing, an investigator from the Registrar, Gregory Johndrow
(Investigator Johndrow), testified regarding his investigation of the complaint.
Mr. Orantes testified on behalf of himself. Nicole Reidhead (Ms. Reidhead), Panda’s Office Manager, testified on behalf of Panda.
On or about September 2, 2024, Panda agreed to repair
Mr. Orantes’s roof for $8.960.76.
Panda did not provide Mr. Orantes with a written contract regarding the
roof repair.
Mr. Orantes paid Panda $8.960.76 for the project.
Panda did not provide Mr. Orantes with a written contract for the project.
On or about September 2, 2025, Mr. Orantes filed a complaint with the
Registrar, alleging poor workmanship on the part of Panda.
The Registrar assigned the complaint to Investigator Johndrow.
On or about September 23, 2025, Investigator Johndrow conducted a job-
site inspection. Investigator Johndrow investigated all complaint items. Investigator Johndrow performed a water test and substantiated a roof leak.
On September 23, 2025, Investigator Johndrow issued a Directive to
Panda that provided, in relevant 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. Failure1154(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, October 10, 2025.
RESTRICTIONS
• You may not perform or hire other contractors to perform work that is outside the scope of your license.
• If your license is currently suspended for administrative reasons1, or is inactive, expired, or cancelled, you may not perform any corrective work nor contract in any manner, which includes hiring other contractors to perform work, until the suspension of your license(s) has been lifted or your license(s) has been reactivated.
DIRECTIVE REQUIREMENTS
You are directed to remedy the following violations by the appropriate means:
Complaint Item 1: “I have had several leaks in my roof. One in bed room, living room, and kitchen. Have current leak they cannot resolve in kitchen with water damage on roof.”
Investigator’s Observations: Verified.
• The area of the kitchen with ceiling and wall water damage leaked after conducting a water test for approximately 15 minutes.
• The respondent shall identify the cause and correct the leak into the kitchen.
• The bedroom leak was resolved prior to the site inspection and the living room was explained as intermittent and was not observed leaking at this time.
Governing Rule: A.R.S. § 32-1154 (A)(3) - R4-9-108(a): Violation of any rule adopted by the registrar; Namely R 4-9-108(a) A contractor shall perform work in a professional and workmanlike manner.
Complaint Item 3: “My concerns regarding water damage and checking for mold are not being addressed.”
Investigator’s Observations: Verified.
• The ceiling and wall water damage in the kitchen has not been corrected.
Governing Rule: A.R.S. § 32-1154 (A)(3) - R4-9-108(a): Violation of any rule adopted by the registrar; Namely R 4-9-108(a) A contractor shall perform work in a professional and workmanlike manner.
ITEMS NOT REQUIRING CORRECTION
The following complaint items require no action by the Panda:
Complaint Item 2: “I’m worried the structural integrity of my roof is compromised.”
Investigator’s Observations: This statement by the complainant is speculation with insufficient evidence and does not implicate a violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A).
Governing Rule: N/A
........................................................................
Panda performed work on Mr. Orantes’s home during the time period for
compliance under the Directive.
On October 23, 2025, Investigator Johndrow sent written notice to both
parties of a compliance job-site inspection on November 5, 2025.
Investigator Johndrow conducted a job-site inspection on November 5,
2025.
Mr. Orantes was present at the job-site inspection. No one appeared at the
job-site inspection on behalf of Panda.
During the job-site compliance inspection, Investigator Johndrow
performed a water test and confirmed that the roof was leaking. Investigator Johndrow also observed water damage in the kitchen.
On November 10, 2025, the Registrar issued a citation against Panda’s
license alleging that Panda violated Ariz. Rev. Stat. section 32-1154(A)(3) - A,A.C. R4-9-108(A), Ariz. Rev. Stat. section 32-1154(A)(12) - Ariz. Rev. Stat. section 32-1158, and Ariz. Rev. Stat. section 32-1154(A)(22).
Mr. Orantes explained that Panda performed poor work and failed to
correct the Directive items.
At hearing, Investigator Johndrow testified consistently with his job-site
inspection notes, the Directive, and his compliance inspection notes.
I find Investigator Johndrow’s testimony to be credible.
At hearing, Ms. Reidhead agreed with Investigator Johndrow that the roof
system installed by Panda did not hold up correctly. Ms. Reidhead acknowledged the interior damage to Mr. Orantes’s home. Ms. Reid head stated that Panda continue to make repairs after the Citation was issued. However, Mr. Orantes did not want Panda to perform additional corrective work after the Citation was issued.
Administrative notice was taken of Respondent’s prior License record on
February 11, 2026. According to that record, Panda’s License No. 324312 was active and only one complaint has resulted in discipline against Panda’s license. The license only had one complaint that resulted in discipline.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
This matter lies within the Registrar’s jurisdiction. See Ariz. Rev. Stat.
sections 32-1101 et seq.
Mr. Orantes bears the burden of proof to establish Panda’s statutory
violation by a preponderance of the evidence. Panda bears the burden to establish affirmative defenses and factors in mitigation of the penalty by the same evidentiary standard. See Ariz. Rev. Stat. section 41-1092.07(G)(2); A.A.C. R2-19-119(A) and A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1); see also Vazanno 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 shows that Panda did not perform the
work in a professional and workmanlike manner, which is a violation of A.A.C. R4-9-108(A), and thereby of Ariz. Rev. Stat. section 32-1154(A)(3).
4. The undisputed evidence established that Panda failed to provide
Mr. Orantes with a written contract, which is a which is a violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. section 32-1154(A)(12) and Ariz. Rev. Stat. section 32-1158.
5. The preponderance of the evidence shows that Panda failed to comply with the Registrar’s Directive without valid justification, which is a violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. section 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 License No. 324312 issued to TN Holdings, LLC
DBA: Panda Roofing, for three days. It is further recommended that the Registrar require Panda to pay the sum of $250.00 as a civil penalty pursuant to Ariz. Rev. Stat. section 32-1154(E).
It is further recommended that if Panda 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 Panda’s license, effective on such deadline date.
No future license shall be issued to any entity consisting of persons associated with Panda, as defined in Ariz. Rev. Stat.. section 32-1101(A)(7), unless Panda 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 11, 2026.
/s/ Velva Moses-Thompson
Administrative Law Judge
Transmitted by either mail, e-mail, or facsimile to:
Tom Cole, Director
Registrar of Contractors
Fausto Orantes
[email redacted]
TN Holdings, LLC
DBA: Panda Roofing,
[email redacted]
By: OAH Staff