ALJDEC - Licensing
2025A-09728-NPC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2026-05-15
IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
Metro Fire Equipment Inc,
COMPLAINANT,
v.
Jayco Design and Installations LLC
DBA: JDI,
License No. ROC 329649,
RESPONDENT.
No. 2025A-09728-NPC-ROC
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION
HEARING: May 7, 2026.
APPEARANCES:
Complainant: Rick Thornock
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
Jayco Design and Installations LLC (Respondent) was the holder of License No. 329649 issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (Registrar).
Between November 1, 2024, and March 12, 2025, Metro Fire Equipment Inc. (Complainant) entered into three separate contracts with Respondent to install or modify fire systems. Specifically, on or about November 1, 2024, Complainant contracted with Respondent to install a fire system at Hyatt Regency. On or about January 14, 2025, Complainant contracted with Respondent to install a fire system at Project X. On or about March 12, 2025, Complainant contracted with Respondent to modify an existing fire system at W Hotel.
On or about September 23, 2025, Complainant filed a Non-Payment Complaint Form with the Registrar, claiming Respondent had failed to pay six invoices, totaling $28,193.90.
On or about September 25, 2025, the Registrar notified Respondent that it had received a complaint and Respondent could raise issues and defenses by October 2, 2025.
On October 24, 2025, the Registrar issued a Citation, alleging that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 32-1154 (A)(10). Respondent timely submitted an Answer on November 10, 2025, asserting that Respondent lacked the capacity to pay and had not received sufficient monies as payment for the particular construction work project or operation for which the services or materials were rendered or purchased. Respondent asserted that Riot Hospitality Group (RHG) was the owner of the project and owed Respondent $50,800.78. Respondent included a statement, dated November 7, 2025, issued to RHG for this amount. Respondent further asserted that the amount owed to Complainant was included in the outstanding balance Respondent had with RHG. Also submitted with Respondent’s Answer was an email from RHG to Respondent with the subject line “Re: Project X invoice” and dated July 9, 2025, which stated, “hope to get you some payment soon.”
The matter was referred to the Office of Administrative Hearings for an administrative hearing. The Notice of Hearing was issued on November 21, 2025, setting the hearing for January 5, 2026.
At the time set for hearing, Complainant did not appear. However, on January 7, 2026, Complainant requested a continuance, stating his non-appearance was due to illness. On January 22, 2026, an order setting the hearing for March 12, 2026, was issued and advised the parties how to connect to the hearing via Google Meet. On March 12, 2026, at the time set for hearing, Complainant experienced technical difficulty and was unable to connect. Therefore, on March 13, 2026, an order was issued setting the hearing for May 7, 2026, to convene both in-person and virtually.
The hearing was held on May 7, 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.
Rick Thornock testified on behalf of Complainant that the work was completed as contracted, and Respondent had not objected to the work completed nor the amounts invoiced. Mr. Thornock further testified that Complainant believed Respondent had received some payment from RHG since the date of the complaint.
Respondent’s Answer asserted that RGH owed Respondent $50,800.78 for the project and the amount Respondent owed to Complainant was included in that outstanding balance.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
This matter lies within the Registrar’s jurisdiction.
The order setting the hearing for May 7, 2026, that the Office of Administrative Hearings sent to Respondent at its email address of record was reasonable and Respondent is deemed to have received notice of the hearing.
Complainant bore the burden of proof to establish Respondent’s statutory violations by a preponderance of the evidence. Respondent bore 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.”
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.
There was no dispute that Respondent owed Complainant the claimed amount. Respondent asserted in its Answer that it lacked the capacity to pay and had not received sufficient monies. However, it was incumbent on the Respondent to prove the affirmative defense. Respondent did not appear at the hearing to provide sworn testimony or present evidence to meet its burden.
Therefore, the preponderance of the evidence supported that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(10) as alleged.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Based on the foregoing, it is recommended that the Registrar suspend Respondent’s License No. 329649 issued by the Registrar until it has provided to the Registrar, and the Registrar has accepted, documents that establish it has paid Complainant $28,193.90 in certified funds.
It is further recommended that when and if the Registrar receives and accepts Respondent’s evidence that it has paid Complainant $28,193.90 in certified funds, the Registrar may close the Complaint in Case No. 2025-09728.
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, May 15, 2026.
/s/ Nedra-Su Kawasaki
Administrative Law Judge
Transmitted by either mail, e-mail, or facsimile to:
Tom Cole, Director
Registrar of Contractors
Metro Fire Equipment Inc.
[email redacted]
Jayco Design and Installations LLC
DBA: JDI,
[email redacted]
By: OAH Staff