ALJDEC - Licensing
2025A-09719-NPC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2026-03-16
IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
Zees Construction LLC,
COMPLAINANT
v.
The Lemus Group Inc
License No. ROC 215088,
RESPONDENT
No. 2025A-09719-NPC-ROC
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION
HEARING: January 26, 2026
APPEARANCES:
Complainant: Alejandro Zamarron
Respondent: No Appearance
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
The Lemus Group, Inc. (Respondent) was the holder of License No. 215088 issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (Registrar) on January 3, 2006.
In or around April 2025, Alejandro Zamarron (Complainant) entered into a contract with Respondent for, among other things, backsplash installation, electrical, plumbing, cleaning, and trash disposal.
On or about September 22, 2025, Complainant filed a Non-Payment Complaint Form with the Registrar, claiming Respondent had failed to pay invoice #1031, amounting to 11,340.00.
On October 23, 2025, the Registrar issued a Citation, alleging that Respondent violated Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) § 32-1154 (A)(10). Respondent timely submitted an Answer on November 7, 2025, asserting that Complainant did not complete the scope of work and because there was no written contract, Respondent was surprised by the amount of the invoice.
The matter was referred to the Office of Administrative Hearings for an administrative hearing. The Notice of Hearing was issued on December 17, 2025, setting the hearing for January 26, 2026.
A hearing was held on January 26, 2026.
Respondent did not request that the hearing be continued. Although the start of the hearing was delayed 15 minutes, Respondent did not appear through an authorized member, employee, or attorney. Consequently, Respondent did not present any evidence to defend its license.
Complainant appeared and testified as follows:
Complainant and Respondent had a prior working relationship, thus not having a written contract was not out of the ordinary course of their business dealings. Complainant testified as to the text messages in evidence documenting the parties’ communications regarding the project from May 14, 2025, through September 16, 2025. Specifically, of note, on May 14, 2025, Complainant discussed payment with the project owner, “PJ”, who advised Complainant that he paid Respondent that day, “enough to cover your invoice” and that Respondent had promised he would pay Complainant “ASAP.” On May 15, 2025, Complainant advised PJ that Respondent claimed he had only received a small payment and would pay Complainant once he received a final draw. PJ responded that he made a $20,000.00 payment, and Respondent stated he would pay Complainant. On June 12, 2025, PJ advised Complainant that he had paid Respondent all that was owed. Complainant further testified that months after payment was due, Respondent asked Complainant to help finish the project by completing punch list items. Complainant testified that he completed all the items he could. The items not completed were either not within his scope of work or Respondent had not provided the materials to do so.
The evidence revealed the following timeline:
On May 14, 2025, Respondent advised Complainant that he had received only a small, partial draw that day, and he would not get a final draw until the punch list was completed, which was expected to be the following week, he “just needed to fix lights and a couple other things.”
On or around May 24, 2025, Complainant completed punch list items for Respondent.
Between May 27 and June 11, 2025, of Complainant’s eleven requests for updates, Respondent answered three, in all of which he stated he was close to completing the project.
On June 12, 2025, Respondent advised Complainant that he was out of town but would give Complainant a check when he was back.
On July 8, 2025, Respondent advised Complainant that a vanity should be delivered to the project “in the next couple days” and he would get Complainant a draw soon.
Between July 8 and July 16, 2025, Respondent did not reply to three requests from Complainant.
On July 17, 2025, Respondent advised Complainant that “he was going to pay.”
Between July 17 and August 9, 2025, Respondent did not reply to six requests from Complainant.
On August 22, 2025, Respondent asked Complainant if he was able to go to the project to help as “discussed earlier in the week.” On August 25, 2025, Respondent advised Complainant that he would pay Complainant’s glass subcontractor “this week for sure – sooner than later.”
On September 9, 2025, Respondent again asked Complainant if he was available to help finish the project.
On September 9, 2025, Complainant gave notice to Respondent that he would not complete any additional work on the project as he had not received any guarantees that he would be paid after the project was finished.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
This matter lies within the Registrar’s jurisdiction.
The copies of the Notice of Hearing that the Registrar mailed to Respondent at its address and email address of record were reasonable and Respondent is deemed to have received notice of the hearing.
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 these matters 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.”
The evidence on record may be given more or less weight toward establishing a preponderance depending on the indicia of credibility associated with that evidence and its source. When a source is proven untrustworthy, its evidence shall be considered less probative of the truth.
A.R.S. § 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.
In Arizona, when construing statutes, we look first to a statute’s language as the best and most reliable index of its meaning. If the statute’s language is clear and unambiguous, we give effect to that language and apply it without using other means of statutory construction, unless applying the literal language would lead to an absurd result. Words should be given “their natural, obvious, and ordinary meaning,” unless defined by the legislature.
The issue in this matter is whether payment, as claimed by Complainant, was due and owing by Respondent. A licensee is required to pay its subcontractor for materials or services rendered, when due, unless the licensee proves the lack of capacity to pay and sufficient payment was not received from the particular project for which the subcontractor’s services or materials were rendered.
In the instant matter, Complainant established that he and Respondent had a prior working relationship, thus not having a formal contract and communicating via text messaging was not out of the ordinary. Complainant agreed to a scope of work, completed the work as agreed, and invoiced Respondent for the completed work on May 12, 2025. Respondent never disputed the existence or validity of the contract. In fact, all evidence showed that Respondent acknowledged compensation was owed to Complainant.
Respondent represented that he was unable to pay Complainant until he received the final draw upon completion of the project. Over the next nearly four months, Respondent continued to claim the project was not completed. The evidence revealed, however, that on May 14, 2025, Respondent received a $20,000.00 draw from the project owner and had promised he would pay Complainant. Further, as of June 12, 2025, the project owner had made all payments due to Respondent.
Therefore, Complainant established that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(10) as alleged.
Based on 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 No. 215088 issued by the Registrar until it has provided to the Registrar, and the Registrar has accepted, documents that establish it has paid Complainant $11,340.00 in certified funds.
It is further recommended that when and if the Registrar receives and accepts Respondent’s evidence that it has paid Complainant $11,340.00 in certified funds, the Registrar may close the Complaint in Case No. 2025-09719.
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, March 16, 2026.
/s/ Nedra-Su Kawasaki
Administrative Law Judge
Transmitted by either mail, e-mail, or facsimile to:
Tom Cole, Director
Registrar of Contractors
Zees Construction LLC
[email redacted]
The Lemus Group Inc
[email redacted]
By: OAH Staff