ALJDEC - Licensing
2025A-09505-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2026-04-30
IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
Judy Rodrigo,
COMPLAINANT
v.
Rob's Roofing LLC
License No. ROC 316378,
RESPONDENT
No. 2025A-09505-CHC-ROC
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION
HEARING: February 2, 2026, and April 8, 2026, with the record held open until April 10, 2026.
APPEARANCES:
Complainant: Judy Rodrigo
Respondent: Robin Morales
Registrar of Contractors: John Smith, Investigator
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Nedra-Su Kawasaki
EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: Administrative notice was taken of the Notice of Hearing Packet submitted by the Registrar of Contractors.
_____________________________________________________________________
FINDINGS OF FACT
Rob's Roofing LLC (Respondent) was the holder of License No. 316378 issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (Registrar) on November 17, 2017.
On or about November 12, 2024, Judy Rodrigo (Complainant) entered into a contract with Respondent to repair her roof. The contract did not include a provision that Complainant had the right to file a complaint with the Registrar within a specified time period.
On or about September 17, 2025, Complainant filed a Licensed Complaint Form with the Registrar, claiming poor work.
The Registrar assigned the complaint to Investigator John Smith, who issued a Jobsite Inspection Notice on September 24, 2025, scheduling the inspection for October 21, 2025.
Investigator Smith conducted the jobsite inspection on October 21, 2025, and Respondent was not present. Following the inspection, Investigator Smith issued a Written Directive From the Registrar to Respondent on October 28, 2025, that provided as follows:
You are directed to remedy the following violations by the appropriate means:
Complaint Item 6: “They used the wrong...brand,...roofing material.”
Investigator’s Observations: This allegation is NOT verified.
Conditions on site:
• This is a two story house.
• The underlayment is not visible due tiles being fully installed.
The contract includes:
• Roof Type: Gator Seal RR
The complainant had the roof evaluated by a third party, Alpha Roofing LLC.
An emailed roof evaluation report from Alpha Roofing LLC, dated 10/24/25 3:20PM, includes:
• Improper Re-roof Preparation and Underlayment Condition
o Several exposed underlayment sections were observed, showing aging, brittleness, and cracks.
o Fasteners were overexposed and inadequately covered, creating potential water intrusion points.
o There is no evidence of underlayment replacement in the re-roofed section, suggesting reuse of deteriorated material.
Conclusion:
• The respondent’s contract specifies “Roof Type: Gator Seal RR”.
• As evidenced by the roof evaluation report from Alpha Roofing LLC, the respondent did not replace the underlayment with “Gator Seal RR”.
Note:
• The complainant has had the west face of the roof redone by a separate contractor.
• Specific to this complaint:
o Investigator observations are limited to the east and south faces of the roof.
o Respondent responsibility is limited to the east and south faces of the roof.
Complaint Item 7: “They used the wrong...color roofing material.”
Investigator’s Observations: Verified.
Conditions on site:
• This is a two story house with a tile roof.
• During this inspection, the roof was viewed through a drone, provided and flown by a representative of Alpha Roofing LLC. (Present at the request of the complainant)
Project description:
• The project included temporarily removing the pre-existing tiles, replacing the underlayment, and re-installing the pre-existing tiles.
• Due to cuts and breakage, some tiles had to be replaced with new tiles.
Current conditions:
• Roof tiles are not a consistent matching color.
Note:
• The complainant has had the west face of the roof redone by a separate contractor.
• Specific to this complaint:
o Investigator observations are limited to the east and south faces of the roof.
o Respondent responsibility is limited to the east and south faces of the roof
Complaint Item 10: “They did not provide Gator Seal underlayment that I paid for.”
Investigator’s Observations: This allegation is NOT verified.
Conditions on site:
• This is a two story house.
• The underlayment is not visible due tiles being fully installed.
The contract includes:
• Roof Type: Gator Seal RR
The complainant had the roof evaluated by a third party, Alpha Roofing LLC.
An emailed roof evaluation report from Alpha Roofing LLC, dated 10/24/25 3:20PM, includes:
• Improper Re-roof Preparation and Underlayment Condition
o Several exposed underlayment sections were observed, showing aging, brittleness, and cracks.
o Fasteners were overexposed and inadequately covered, creating potential water intrusion points.
o There is no evidence of underlayment replacement in the re-roofed section, suggesting reuse of deteriorated material.
Conclusion:
• The respondent’s contract specifies “Roof Type: Gator Seal RR”.
• As evidenced by the roof evaluation report from Alpha Roofing LLC, the respondent did not replace the underlayment with “Gator Seal RR”.
Note:
• The complainant has had the west face of the roof redone by a separate contractor.
• Specific to this complaint:
o Investigator observations are limited to the east and south faces of the roof.
o Respondent responsibility is limited to the east and south faces of the roof.
The Written Directive required Respondent to notify Investigator Smith of Respondent’s compliance with the directive prior to 5:00 p.m. on November 13, 2025.
On November 19, 2025, Investigator Smith determined that no response had been received by Respondent and no corrective work had been performed.
On November 21, 2025, the Registrar issued a Citation against Respondent, finding cause to charge Respondent with violations of A.R.S. §§ 32-1154(A)(2)(a); 32-1154(A)(3), namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(A); 32-1154(A)(12), namely A.R.S. § 32-1158; and 32-1154(A)(22).
On November 20, 2025, Respondent submitted an Answer to the Citation denying the allegations.
The Registrar referred the matter to the Office of Administrative Hearings, an independent state agency, for an evidentiary hearing.
On December 17, 2025, the Registrar issued a Notice of Hearing on Contested Case setting the hearing for February 2, 2026.
The hearing was held virtually via Google Meet on February 2, 2026, with further hearing held on April 8, 2026.
Investigator Smith testified in support of his jobsite inspection findings, the Written Directive, and the Citation. Specifically, Investigator Smith testified that the Written Directive contained two errors; specifically, Complaint items 6 and 10 were duplicates and the note under Investigator’s Observations for these Complaint items mistakenly documented them as “not verified”. Regarding Complaint item 7, Investigator Smith testified that he viewed the roof tile using a drone. On questioning, Investigator Smith confirmed that the citation for violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(2)(a) was for Complaint item 6 regarding the underlayment.
Complainant testified to the following timeline:
November 2024 – Respondent completed the roof, but the tile color did not match.
December 2024 – Respondent painted the roof tiles in an attempt to match.
April 2025 – Alpha Roofing replaced the mismatched tiles on the west side of the roof.
July 2025 – Alpha Roofing completed a re-roof of the west side of Complainant’s house.
August 2025 – A storm caused damage to the roof in the front part of Complainant’s house in an area that Alpha Roofing did not re-roof.
September 2025 – Complainant’s insurance contracted with Dependable Roofing to fix the area damaged by the storm. Complainant testified that Dependable Roofing reported that the underlayment had failed because it was old and was the cause of water damage in her bedroom and garage.
October 2025 – On Complainant’s request, Alpha Roofing performed a third-party evaluation of her roof and emailed a report of findings to Complainant and Investigator Smith. The report provided “background” information indicating that Complainant requested Alpha Roofing assess workmanship concerns related to roof repair performed by Respondent in or around November 2024. It stated, Complainant reported dissatisfaction with visible color mismatch, claims of material misrepresentation (“Gator Seal” application), and suspected improper installation practices. The report provided the inspection was performed on October 20, 2025, to document conditions and verify compliance with standard roofing practices and material use. It did not document how the inspection was conducted, nor which sections of the roof were inspected. The report included a finding of “Absence of ‘Gator Seal’ Application.” To support the finding, the report included three observations, (1) Respondent claimed to have applied GatorSeal to seal and protect the tile surface; (2) upon inspection, no visible signs of sealant (gloss, sheen, or residue) were present; and (3) the tiles remained dry and porous, confirming that no sealant application occurred.
Robin Morales testified that Respondent had invoices from its supplier documenting the material delivered and time of delivery; which included GatorSeal.
Jared Bertoldo, on behalf of Respondent, expressed concern that the Alpha Roofing report writer did not know that GatorSeal was an underlayment that goes under the tile and was inspecting the top surface of the tiles. Mr. Bertoldo noted the report incorrectly stated GatorSeal was a sealant applied to the tile surface, and on this misconception determined Respondent had not applied GatorSeal. He explained that GatorSeal had an “asphalt-like” appearance and could withstand handling, bends, and cracks. It was shiny and black when new but could look dirty after time. Specifically, Mr. Bertoldo noted, crinkles and cracks in the underlayment did not mean it was old, expired, or that Respondent reused underlayment. On questioning, Mr. Bertoldo explained that the underlayment would not be compromised by small cracks, because GatorSeal had a self-sealing material underneath that would negate any cracks from a brand-new underlayment. Mr. Bertoldo stated, “You can nail through it, and it just gets gummy again with the heat.”
Bryan Armenta, General and Operations Manager, testified that Respondent’s supplier, ABC, maintained a portal to manage and track materials for each project. Mr. Armenta explained that ABC had a record for each project and took time- and date-stamped photographs onsite of the materials delivered, which were uploaded to the portal for Respondent to track. The project page also recorded the delivery driver’s name, the date and time of delivery, and a photograph of the delivery address to ensure delivery was made to the correct address. Mr. Armenta shared his computer screen during the virtual hearing to present the portal file for Complainant’s project. Mr. Armenta specifically noted a photograph that depicted seven rolls, on the roof, clearly marked “GatorSeal.”
Regarding the tile color match, Mr. Morales testified that the employee who handled Complainant’s project made certain unauthorized decisions and was no longer employed with Respondent. Mr. Bertoldo testified that it was common in the industry for houses to have been exposed to weather and elements for 20 years, so even the exact tile from the same manufacturer, brand new, would be a different shade than the existing tiles. Mr. Bertoldo explained it was the reason Respondent’s contract stated that some tiles may not match.
Administrative notice was taken of Respondent’s prior License record on April 28, 2026. According to that record, Respondent’s License No. 316378 was ACTIVE; and there was one open complaint (instant matter), no disciplined cases, and no resolved/settled complaints 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. Respondent bears the burden of proof to establish an affirmative defense 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.”
The preponderance of the evidence did not establish that Respondent departed from or disregarded plans or specifications in violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(2)(a), specifically regarding Compliance Item 6. Though Complainant and Investigator Smith presented testimony and evidence that GatorSeal was not installed per the contract, Respondent presented equally compelling testimony and evidence that GatorSeal was ordered and delivered to Complainant’s home.
Complainant’s burden of proof was not met because the evidence presented was less reliable. In particular, Investigator Smith did not inspect the underlayment and relied on an emailed evaluation report dated October 20, 2025, from a third-party roofing contractor, Alpha Roofing. Alpha Roofing was not a neutral and uninterested contractor, having previously performed work on Complainant’s roof in April and July 2025. In fact, between November 21, 2024, (Respondent’s completed work) and October 20, 2025 (third-party evaluation), three separate contractors, including Respondent and Alpha Roofing performed work on Complainant’s roof. Moreover, the report did not, at a minimum, identify how the roof was evaluated nor which section was inspected; thus, it was not possible to determine that the work referenced was attributable to Respondent. Additionally, in the Observations and Findings regarding the absence of GatorSeal application, the report documented that Respondent claimed to have applied GatorSeal to “seal and protect the tile surface,” the inspection revealed no visible signs of sealant (gloss, sheen, or residue) present, and the tiles remained dry and porous, “confirming no sealant application occurred.” GatorSeal is not a sealant applied over roof tiles, it is an underlayment that self-adheres to the decking when installed. This mischaracterization by a third-party evaluator diminished confidence in its reliability.
The preponderance of the evidence established that Respondent failed to perform all work in a professional and workmanlike manner in violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(A), specifically regarding Complaint Item 7. Respondent presented evidence that the contract advised Complainant that “some tile may not match,” and testified regarding the nature of color-matching new and old tiles. However, despite natural color differences due to weathering, and contract clauses advising Complainant of such, variation must still be reasonable. A general statement that “not all tile may match,” does not waive workmanship standards. Both Complainant and Investigator Smith provided testimony and evidence documenting the variation in tile color as viewed during the jobsite inspection. To determine the extent and reasonableness of roof tile color variation, personal knowledge, contemporaneously documented, is more reliable than 2D digital photographs. Therefore, the undersigned Administrative Law Judge finds Complainant met the burden of proof as to Complaint item 7.
The preponderance of the evidence established that Respondent failed to comply with this chapter in violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(12), namely the contract requirements in A.R.S. § 32-1158. Although Respondent’s contract did include the required statement informing property owners of their right to file a complaint with the Registrar, it failed to also advise that the complaint must be file within the statute of limitations period.
The preponderance of the evidence 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, for two business days, Respondent’s License No. 316378.
It is further recommended that the Registrar require Respondent to pay the sum of $500.00 as a civil penalty pursuant to A.R.S. § 32-1154(E).
It is further recommended that within thirty days of the effective date of the Order Respondent shall provide an amended contract to the Registrar which establishes compliance with the requirements in A.R.S. § 32-1158. If Respondent fails to comply, Respondent’s license shall be suspended until it provides a compliant contract.
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, April 30, 2026.
/s/ Nedra-Su Kawasaki
Administrative Law Judge
Transmitted by either mail, e-mail, or facsimile to:
Tom Cole, Director
Registrar of Contractors
John Smith, Investigator
Registrar of Contractors
[email redacted]
Judy Rodrigo
[email redacted]
Rob's Roofing LLC
DBA:
[email redacted]
[email redacted]
By: OAH Staff