ALJDEC - Licensing
2025A-09105-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2026-06-24
IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
Lianne Eastman,
COMPLAINANT,
v.
Ridgeline Roofing Solutions, LLC,
License No. ROC 359187,
RESPONDENT.
No. 2025A-09105-CHC-ROC
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION
HEARING: June 3, 2026 at 9:00am
APPEARANCES: Complainant Lianne Eastman appeared on her own behalf. Jason Breen appeared on behalf of Respondent Ridgeline Roofing Solutions, LLC. Investigator Cliff Corlett appeared on behalf of the Arizona Registrar of Contractors.
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Nicole Robinson
EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: Arizona Registrar of Contractors Notice of Hearing Packet (“Packet”).
FINDINGS OF FACT
Ridgeline Roofing Solutions, LLC (“Respondent”) is the holder of License No. ROC 359187, first issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (“Registrar”) on May 30, 2025.
On or about August 2, 2025, Lianne Eastman (“Complainant”) entered into a contract with Respondent for, among other things, a roofing project at her residence located in Kingman, Arizona. The amount of the contract was $15,246.45 and Complainant paid Respondent $18,646.45. The estimate/contract that Respondent provided to Complainant did not include: the contractor’s business address, applicable taxes, and no information about the Arizona Registrar of Contractors.
On or about September 5, 2025, the Registrar received a Complaint against Respondent from Complainant alleging poor work with respect to the project.
The Registrar assigned the complaint to Investigator Cliff Corlett. On October 7, 2025, Investigator Corlett conducted a jobsite inspection with both parties present.
On October 24, 2025, Investigator Corlett issued a Written Directive to Respondent that provided 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 or before November 10, 2025.
. . . .
At the 10/7/25 onsite meeting the Complainant indicated that the Respondent had returned to the property since she filed the complaint and that there were no current leaks.
. . . .
DIRECTIVE REQUIREMENTS
You are directed to remedy the following violations by the appropriate means:
Complaint Item: 2 - NOT ENOUGH / CORRECT SEALANTS.
Investigator’s Observation: Some unsealed nail and staple holes were
observed on roof jacks and or flashings.
RESPONDENT SHOULD CORRECT BY APPROPRIATE METHODS.
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.
6. On December 18, 2025, Investigator Corlett issued an Amended Written Directive to Respondent that provided as follows:
(Amended 12/18/25 for roof leaks, Item #4.)
All other directives remain the same although there is now a new Compliance deadline date.
You must notify the Registrar’s assigned Investigator of your compliance with this Directive prior to 5:00 p.m. on or before 1/10/26.
. . . .
DIRECTIVE REQUIREMENTS
You are directed to remedy the following violations by the appropriate means:
Complaint Item: 2 - NOT ENOUGH / CORRECT SEALANTS.
Investigator’s Observation: Some unsealed nail and staple holes observed in roof jacks and or flashings.
RESPONDENT SHOULD CORRECT BY APPROPRIATE METHODS.
. . . .
Complaint Item: 4 - BAD LEAKS WITH INTERIOR AND EXTERIOR
DAMAGE.
Investigator’s Observation: At the 2nd onsite meeting 12/3/25 water
testing was performed and leaks were demonstrated in the area where there is ceiling damage in the hall bathroom and rear patio. Also there is notable ceiling sagging in rear bedroom.
RESPONDENT SHOULD DETERMINE CAUSE AND CORRECT LEAKS AND DAMAGES BY APPROPRIATE METHODS.
. . . .
7. Following the issuance of the Written Directive, Investigator Corlett was informed that some corrective work was performed. As such, a Compliance Inspection was performed on February 25, 2026. The relevant Compliance Findings are as follows:
Complaint Item: 2 - NOT ENOUGH / CORRECT SEALANTS.
Compliance Observation: Respondent has made some repair attempts but leaks persist and drywall damage has not been repaired.
NOT CORRECTED
Complaint Item: 4 - BAD LEAKS WITH INTERIOR AND EXTERIOR DAMAGE.
Compliance Observation: Respondent has made some repair attempts but leaks persist and drywall damage has not been repaired.
NOT CORRECTED
. . . .
8. On March 2, 2026, the Registrar issued a Citation against Respondent, charging possible violations of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely Ariz. Admin. Code R4-9-108(A); Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(12), namely Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1158; and Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(22).
Hearing Evidence
Investigator Corlett testified to his investigations and the directives that he issued. Complainant agreed with the items that Investigator Corlett provided in his directives but believed that other items he deemed did not require correction, should have been corrected.
Jason Breen, Respondent Qualifying Party testified that Respondent made multiple attempts to correct the leaks but not the drywall. Mr. Breen testified that there was prior drywall damage and improper roofing before Respondent began any work on the project. Mr. Breen testified in regards to the contract issue that he will have to better understand how to make his contracts adhere to the law.
Administrative notice was taken of Respondent’s prior License record on June 3, 2026. Such prior License record reflected that Respondent’s License No. ROC 359187 was first issued on May 30, 2025, and was Active. Such prior License record also reflected that there was one open complaint and no complaints resulting in discipline against Respondent’s license.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
This matter lies within the Registrar’s jurisdiction.
Complainant bears the burden of proof to establish Respondent’s statutory violations by a preponderance of the evidence. A preponderance of the evidence means “[p]roof which leads the trier of fact to find that the existence of the contested fact is more probable than its nonexistence.”
In this case, the evidence established that Respondent’s work was not in conformity with the Registrar’s standards. Investigator Corlett went out to inspect the property, and a few items were much worse than initial inspection. Therefore, Complainant established that Respondent did not complete the project in a workmanlike manner in violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely Ariz. Admin. Code R4-9-108(A).
Respondent’s contract/estimate was unprofessional with handwritten notes scribbled on it along with typewritten elements. The evidence clearly established that Respondent’s contract failed to include the required elements of a contract set forth in Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1158(A). Therefore, Complainant established that Respondent failed to comply with the Registrar’s statute in violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(12).
Furthermore, the evidence established that Respondent did not complete the corrective work following the Directive being issued. Therefore, Complainant established that Respondent failed to take appropriate corrective action following a written directive from the Registrar in violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 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. ROC 359187 for a period of one day.
It is further recommended that the Registrar require Respondent to pay the sum of $100.00 as a civil penalty pursuant to Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 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 Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1101(A)(5), unless Respondent tenders payment of any outstanding prior civil penalty.
It is further recommended that, on or before thirty (30) days after the effective date of the final order, Respondent shall provide a sample contract to the Registrar to demonstrate that it has amended its contracts to include the nine terms required by Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1158(A). If Respondent fails to establish to the Registrar that it has brought its contracts into compliance with Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1158(A) within thirty days, its contractor’s license shall be suspended until it demonstrates that it has done so.
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, June 24, 2026.
/s/ Nicole Robinson
Administrative Law Judge
Transmitted by either mail, e-mail, or facsimile to:
Tom Cole, Director
Registrar of Contractors
Lianne Eastman
3763 Martingale Dr
Kingman, AZ 86409
[email redacted]
Ridgeline Roofing Solutions, LLC,
3069 E. Snavely Ave.
Kingman, AZ 86409
[email redacted]
Cliff Corlett
Registrar of Contractors
[email redacted]
By: OAH Staff