ALJDEC - Licensing

2025A-09851-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2026-06-08

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

Kristina Cummins,

COMPLAINANT

v.

David Michael Lopez

DBA: Action Contractors,

License No. ROC 344439,

RESPONDENT

No. 2025A-09851-CHC-ROC

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION

HEARING: May 19, 2026

APPEARANCES: Investigator Cliff Corlett on behalf of the Registrar of Contractors. Complainant Kristina Cummins on behalf of herself. Respondent David Michael Lopez on behalf of himself.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Fahd Nazir

EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: Administrative notice was taken of the hearing packet submitted by the Registrar of Contractors. Complainant Exhibits 1 through 27 admitted.

FINDINGS OF FACT

David Michael Lopez DBA: Action Contractors (Respondent) is the holder of License No. 344439 issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (Registrar).

On or about April 18, 2024, Kristina Cummins (Complainant) entered into a contract with Respondent for, among other things, construction of a new home.

On or about September 25, 2025, the Registrar received a Complaint against Respondent from Complainant alleging poor work with respect to the project.

The Registrar assigned the complaint to Investigator Cliff Corlett. After a jobsite inspection on October 17, 2025, at which Respondent was present, Investigator Corlett issued a Written Directive to Respondent that provided as follows:

After investigation, the Registrar determined that you failed to meet the requirements of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A), and now issues this Directive requiring you to take appropriate corrective action. Failure to comply with this Directive constitutes a violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22) and may result in the issuance of a citation, discipline of your license,

and a civil penalty pursuant to A.R.S. § 32-1154(E) of up to $500.00. You must notify the Registrar’s assigned Investigator of your compliance with this Directive prior to 5:00 p.m. on or before December 25, 2025.

. . . .

DIRECTIVE REQUIREMENTS

You are directed to remedy the following violations by the appropriate means:

Complaint Item: 3 - Possible concrete slab under shower not level, leaves water sitting in 2 areas.

Investigator’s Observation: Master shower does not drain properly. Ponding. RESPONDET SHOULD DETERMINE CAUSE AND CORRECT BY APPROPRIATE METHODS. . . .

Complaint Item: 4 - Exterior window trim replaced last year because it was too short, same problem is back again. Water can get in. Either heat is causing this or?

Investigator’s Observation:

Allegation confirmed. This would be a manufacturer’s warranty issue.

RESPONDET SHOULD CONTACT MANUFACTURER AND CORRECT BY APPROPRIATE METHODS. . . .

Complaint Item: 5 - We need copies of all invoices for windows and doors in order to request warranty work.

Investigator’s Observation: Respondent should assist the homeowner in obtaining any/all warranty work required. . . .

Complaint Item: 6 - We need a list of all sub-contractors and phone numbers. We have asked and haven't received it.

Investigator’s Observation: Respondent should assist the homeowner in obtaining any/all warranty work required and any required corrective work by sub-contractors. . . .

Complaint Item: 7 - Concrete falling apart, disintegrating and cracking on back patio.

Investigator’s Observation: The Workmanship Standards for Licensed Contractors (WSLC) states concrete surfaces Concrete should not deteriorate to the extent that the aggregate is exposed or the aesthetics are destroyed under normal use and weather conditions. Contractor should take corrective action necessary to repair or replace defective areas at front edge of patio. RESPONDET SHOULD CORRECT BY APPROPRIATE METHODS. . . .

Complaint Item: 8 - Flooring in home curling up at ends.

Investigator’s Observation: LVP planking has locking joint(s) failures. RESPONDET SHOULD DETERMINE CAUSE AND CORRECT BY APPROPRIATE METHODS. . . .

Complaint Item: 10 - Dave repaired bedroom ceiling and used wrong paint color, need correct colors.

Investigator’s Observation: Bedroom ceiling paint touch-up is a poor match. RESPONDENT SHOULD REPAINT AS NECESSARY TO PROPERLY BLEND ALL PAINT TOGETHER. . . .

Following the issuance of the Written Directive, Respondent attempted to correct the workmanship issues and a compliance jobsite inspection was scheduled for February 13, 2026. After conducting a compliance jobsite inspection, Investigator Corlett documented his observations in the Compliance Jobsite Inspection General Notes, which specified that Complaint Items 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 were not corrected, whereas Complaint Item 10 was corrected.

Thereafter, Investigator Corlett forwarded the matter to the Registrar’s Legal Department.

On February 23, 2026, the Registrar issued a Citation against Respondent, charging possible violations of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely Ariz. Admin. Code R4-9-108(A); and Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(22). Respondent timely filed a written Answer to the Citation and included in its Answer a request to dismiss the Citation. The Registrar denied the request via Order dated March 20, 2026.

The matter was then referred to the Office of Administrative Hearings, an independent State agency, for an evidentiary hearing. A hearing was held on May 19, 2026.

Investigator Corlett testified consistently with the findings contained in the Written Directive and Compliance Notes. He testified that Respondent corrected one of the items identified in the Written Directive. Investigator Corlett referenced the photographs he took during his compliance jobsite investigation to illustrate the deficiencies in Respondent’s work, specifically, photographs 4 and 5. He testified that there was water ponding in the shower area.

Complainant agreed with Investigator Colett’s testimony. Complainant testified that the flooring lifted/curled up in various spots. She testified to discussing the issues with staff at a home renovations store, who verified for Complainant that LPV floors popped/curled when the locks designed to hold them in place were broken during installation. Respondent agreed to fix the issue by gluing the flooring, but Complainant wanted the issue to be fixed “the right way” and therefore rejected the partial repair.

Respondent testified that he performed several repairs for Complainant in the past year and that he always responded to Complainant’s requests in a timely manner. Overall, Respondent denied the allegations against him and presented his own narrative. As to the LPV floor lifting issue, he contended the lifting/curling was due to water spills and moisture from dog water bowl and not broken locks.

Respondent argued that most of the pictures taken by the investigator and Complainant were unreliable evidence because they were taken from odd angles. Namely, Respondent believed that pictures of shower area did not show any ponding, rather they showed hard water stain marks caused due to normal wear and tear and unrelated to workmanship. The Administrative Law Judge found the documentary evidence to be reliable evidence, and it further corroborated the Complainant’s position.

Administrative notice is taken of Respondent’s prior License record on May 19, 2026. Such prior License record reflects that Respondent’s License No. 344439 was first issued on April 14, 2023, and is active. Such prior License record also reflects that there was one open complaint and no prior complaints against Respondent’s license

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

This matter lies within the Registrar’s jurisdiction.

Respondent’s revoked license does not deprive Complainant of her right to prosecute her complaint or prevent the Registrar from determining the merits of the complaint.

Complainant bears the burden of proof to establish Respondent’s statutory violations 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 established that portions of Respondent’s work was not in conformity with the Registrar’s standards. Therefore, Complainant established that Respondent did not complete the project in a workmanlike manner in violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely Ariz. Admin. Code R4-9-108(A).

The evidence established that Respondent did not complete all of the corrective work following the Directive being issued. Further, Respondent failed to establish any affirmative defense to establish valid justification for such failure. Therefore, Complainant established that Respondent failed to take appropriate corrective action following a written directive from the Registrar in violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 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 Respondent’s License No. 344439 for a period of one day.

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 8, 2026.

/s/ Fahd Nazir

Administrative Law Judge

Transmitted by either mail, e-mail, or facsimile to:

Tom Cole, Director

Registrar of Contractors

[email redacted]

David Michael Lopez

DBA: Action Contractors

[email redacted]

Kristina Cummins

[email redacted]

Cliff Corlett

Registrar of Contractors

[email redacted]

By: OAH Staff