ALJDEC - Licensing
2025A-09284-NPC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2026-06-19
IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
Sunburst Landscaping, Inc.,
COMPLAINANT,
v.
A & E Builders, LLC,
License No. ROC 336255,
RESPONDENT.
No. 2025A-09284-NPC-ROC
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION
HEARING: June 9, 2026
APPEARANCES: Noelle Boothby appeared on behalf of Complainant Sunburst Landscaping, Inc. Respondent A & E Builders, LLC failed to appear.
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Sondra J. Vanella
EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: None; Administrative Notice was taken of the Agency Record
FINDINGS OF FACT
Procedural Background
The hearing of this matter was initially scheduled to convene on February 17, 2026, at 1:00 p.m. On the date and time set for hearing, Noelle Boothby appeared on behalf of Sunburst Landscaping, Inc. (“Complainant”). Zulema Valenzuela appeared on behalf of A & E Builders, LLC (“Respondent”).
The parties participated in a prehearing discussion outside of the presence of the Administrative Law Judge. Following that discussion, the parties advised that they had entered into a settlement agreement, however, needed additional time in which to execute the terms of their agreement.
The hearing was continued and set for a written Status Update on May 29, 2026.
On April 9, 2026, Complainant filed correspondence with the Office of Administrative Hearings stating that Respondent had breached the terms of the parties’ settlement agreement and requested that the matter be re-set for hearing.
On April 20, 2026, the Office of Administrative Hearings issued to the parties an Order Granting Continuance and Setting Hearing Via Google Meet. The Order advised the parties of the continued hearing date and time and provided the information and instructions necessary for participation in the hearing either by video or by phone. The Order was sent to Respondent’s email address of record that had been used throughout these proceedings.
On the date and time set for continued hearing, Ms. Boothby appeared on behalf of Complainant. Respondent failed to appear notwithstanding a grace period provided within which to appear. Respondent did not notify the Office of Administrative Hearings of any cause for the absence or delay, nor did Respondent request a continuance of the hearing.
The hearing proceeded in Respondent’s absence.
Hearing Evidence
Respondent is the holder of License Number 336255 issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (“Registrar”).
Complainant filed a Complaint against Respondent with the Registrar alleging that Respondent had failed to pay Complainant the sum of $16,220.00 for a landscaping and irrigation project located at City Gate in Gilbert, Arizona.
The parties were unable to resolve their differences. The Registrar issued a Citation against Respondent for its alleged violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(10).
Ms. Boothby, Complainant’s Vice-president, testified that the parties contracted on July 25, 2024. The contract price was $16,220.00. Complainant completed its work on the project in August 2024, and invoiced Respondent on August 23, 2024.
After repeated requests for payment, on April 3, 2025, Respondent paid Complainant $8,110.00, one half of the contract amount, and Respondent indicated that it would pay the contract balance within the following thirty days.
Ms. Boothby testified that she sent many emails to Respondent regarding the balance owed, and after Complainant filed the instant Complaint with the Registrar, Respondent paid an additional $500.00. Consequently, the remaining contract balance is $7,610.00.
Respondent failed to appear for the hearing, and therefore, did not present any controverting evidence.
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 this matter 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.”
A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(10) includes among the grounds for suspension, revocation, or other disciplinary action against a contractor’s license:
Failure 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 at the time of the hearing, Respondent owed a total of $7,610.00 for the work performed by Complainant.
Respondent failed to appear, and as such, 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 A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(10) by failing to pay Complainant $7,610.00 for services or materials rendered in connection with Respondent’s contracting business.
Based upon Respondent’s violation of the provisions of A.R.S. § 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 Number 336255 issued by the Registrar until it has provided to the Registrar, and the Registrar has accepted, documents that establish that it has paid Complainant $7,610.00 in certified funds.
It is further recommended that when and if the Registrar receives and accepts Respondent’s evidence that it has paid Complainant $7,610.00 in certified funds, the Registrar may close the Complaint in Case Number 2025-09284.
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, June 19, 2026.
/s/ Sondra J. Vanella
Administrative Law Judge
Transmitted by either mail, e-mail, or facsimile to:
Tom Cole, Director
Registrar of Contractors
A & E Builders, LLC
[email redacted]
Sunburst Landscaping, Inc.
[email redacted]
By: OAH Staff