ALJDEC - Licensing
2025A-09720-NPC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2026-03-24
IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
Empire Paving & Maintenance LLC
COMPLAINANT,
v.
Doud Development and Construction Inc,
License No. ROC 302248,
RESPONDENT.
No. 2025A-09720-NPC-ROC
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION
HEARING: March 17, 2026
APPEARANCES: Jairo Munoz appeared on behalf of Empire Paving &
Maintenance, LLC. No one appeared on behalf of Doud Development and Construction, Inc.
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Velva Moses-Thompson
EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: Exhibit A: The Hearing Packet
submitted by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors.
_____________________________________________________________________
On or about January 15, 2025, Empire Paving & Maintenance, LLC
(Empire) agreed to remove and install asphalt for Doud Development and Construction, Inc. (Doud), for the amount of $9,500.00. See Exhibit A, pgs. 10-11.
Doud paid Empire a $5,000 deposit for the project.
After performing the agreed upon work, Empire issued an invoice to Doud
for the balance of $4,500.00. See Exhibit A, pg.12.
On September 22, 2025, Empire filed a complaint with the Arizona
Registrar of Contactors (Registrar). See Exhibit A, pgs. 10-19. Through the complaint, Empire alleged that Doud failed to pay $4,500 for labor and materials provided to Doud, when payment became due. See id.
5. On October 22, 2025, the Registrar issued a Citation against Doud’s license alleging that Doud violated Ariz. Rev. Stat. section 32-1154(A)(10).
6. Doud filed a timely answer to the citation. In the answer, Mike Doud stated that payments were being made to Empire.
7. Doud made payments to Empire totaling $2,000.00 after the complaint was filed. See the hearing audio record at 5:00 to 10:00 minutes.
8. The matter was referred to the Office of Administrative Hearings for an evidentiary hearing.
9. A hearing was held on March 17, 2026.
10. At hearing, Jairo Munoz, Empire’s Senior Estimator, provided credible testimony on behalf of Empire. No one appeared on behalf of Doud.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
A party asserting a claim, right, or entitlement bears the burden of proof; a
party asserting an affirmative defense has the burden of establishing the affirmative defense. The standard of proof on all issues in this matter is that of a preponderance of the evidence. Arizona Administrative Code R2-19-119.
“At a hearing on an agency action to suspend, revoke, terminate or modify
on its own initiative material conditions of a license or permit, the agency has the burden of persuasion.” A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2).
A preponderance of the evidence is:
The greater weight of the evidence, not necessarily established by the greater number of witnesses testifying to a fact but by evidence that has the most convincing force; superior evidentiary weight that, though not sufficient to free the mind wholly from all reasonable doubt, is still sufficient to incline a fair and impartial mind to one side of the issue rather than the other.
Black’s Law Dictionary 1373 (10th ed. 2014).
Statutes should be interpreted to provide a fair and sensible result.
Gutierrez v. Industrial Commission of Arizona, 226 Ariz. 395, 249 P.3d 1095 (2011)(citation omitted); State v. McFall, 103 Ariz. 234, 238, 439 P.2d 805, 809 (1968) ("Courts will not place an absurd and unreasonable construction on statutes.").
“Statutes shall be liberally construed to effect their objects and to promote
justice.” A.R.S.. § 1-211(B).
The purpose of the ROC’s licensing statutes is to protect the public from
unscrupulous, unqualified, and financially irresponsible contractors. See Aesthetic Property Maintenance v. Capital Indem. Corp., 183 Ariz. 74, 900 P. 2d 1210 (1995).
A.R.S. § 32-1154(A) provides that:
The holder of a license or any person listed on a license pursuant to this chapter shall not commit any of the following acts or omissions: .... 10. Failure by a licensee or agent or official of a licensee to pay monies in excess of seven hundred fifty dollars when due for materials or services rendered in connection with the licensee's operations as a contractor when the licensee has the capacity to pay or, if the licensee lacks the capacity to pay, when the licensee has received sufficient monies as payment for the particular construction work project or operation for which the services or materials were rendered or purchased.
8. 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 . . . to pay monies in excess of seven hundred fifty dollars when due for materials or services rendered in connection with the licensee’s operations as a contractor when the licensee has the capacity to pay or, if the licensee lacks the capacity to pay, when the licensee has received sufficient monies as payment for the particular construction work project or operation for which the services or materials were rendered or purchased.” Emphasis Added.
9.. The preponderance of the evidence shows that Doud failed to pay $4,500 to Empire when payment became due for the labor and materials provided to Doud. The undisputed evidence presented at hearing shows that Doud has failed to pay Empire a balance of $2,500.00, as of the hearing date.
10.. Accordingly, Empire has failed to meet its burden to show that Respondent violated Ariz. Rev. Stat section 32-1154(A)(10) as alleged.
11. The Administrative Law Judge concludes that grounds exist to impose discipline on Doud’s license.
RECOMMENDed order
Based on the foregoing, it is recommended that the Registrar suspend license number 302248 held by Doud Development and Construction, Inc., until it has provided to the Registrar, and the Registrar has accepted documents that establish that it has paid Empire Paving & Maintenance, LLC $2,500.00 in certified funds.
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 24, 2026.
/s/ Velva Moses-Thompson
Administrative Law Judge
Transmitted by either mail, e-mail, or facsimile to:
Tom Cole, Director
Registrar of Contractors
Doud Development and Construction Inc
[email redacted]
Empire Paving & Maintenance LLC
[email redacted]
By: OAH Staff