ALJDEC - Licensing

2025A-10049-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2026-03-31

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

Valerie Romero,

COMPLAINANT,

v.

Arizona 48 Contracting LLC

dba Pro-Tech Coatings,

License No. ROC 352159,

RESPONDENT.

No. 2025A-10049-CHC-ROC

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION

HEARING: March 24, 2026

APPEARANCES: Complainant failed to appear. Respondent failed to appear. Registrar Investigator James Carter appeared.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Kay A. Abramsohn

EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: Registrar Notice of Hearing Packet.

FINDINGS OF FACT

Arizona 48 Contracting LLC dba Pro-Tech Coatings (“Respondent”) is the holder of License No. 352159 issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (“Registrar” or “ROC”) on May 13, 2024.

In May 2025, Valerie Romero (“Complainant”) contracted with Respondent for remodeling at her residence for the contracted price of $25,000.00. The work began on June 9, 2025 and stopped on August 20, 2025.

On October 1, 2025, the Registrar received a Licensed Complaint Form (“Complaint”) against Respondent from Complainant. The Complaint alleged poor work and abandonment.

The Registrar assigned the Complaint to Investigator James Carter (“Investigator”). After a jobsite inspection, on October 22, 2025, Investigator issued a Written Directive to Respondent, which provided that Respondent was required to take appropriate corrective action on the determined flooring issues by a certain date.

Investigator also issued a Warning Letter to Respondent for alleged violation of Arizona Revised Statutes (“Ariz. Rev. Stat.”) § 32-1154(A)(12), specifically Ariz. Rev. Stat § 32-1158 for Respondent’s failure to include all nine required minimum elements in its written contracts, including its contract with Complainant.

On or about October 17, 2025, the Registrar issued a Citation against Respondent charging possible violations of the applicable statutes:

Charge :1 A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) - R4-9-108(A) Violation of any rule adopted by the Registrar; Namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(a): A contractor shall perform all work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

Charge :2 A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(12) – A.R.S. § 32-1158

Failure in any material respect to comply with this chapter; Namely A.R.S. § 32-1158.

Charge :3 A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22) Failure to take appropriate corrective action to comply with this chapter or with rules adopted pursuant to this chapter without valid justification within a reasonable period of time after receiving a written directive from the Registrar.

Respondent filed an Answer to the Citation.

The matter was not resolved informally between the parties.

On February 12, 2026, the Registrar issued a Notice of Hearing setting the administrative hearing to convene virtually on March 24, 2026 through the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings (“OAH”).

On February 18, 2026, the OAH issued an Order setting forth the virtual link and optional phone number for the virtual hearing.

At the time of the hearing and for 10 minutes thereafter, neither Complainant nor Respondent appeared virtually or telephonically to present any testimony of evidence.

Not long after that, Complainant filed an ex-parte email to the Tribunal simply stating “Good afternoon, we will no longer be attending.”

Administrative notice is taken of the Registrar’s public records and Respondent’s ROC License record on March 31, 2026. The public record indicates that Respondent has two open cases with the Registrar.

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. “A preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.”

Having failed to appear to present any evidence with regard to the Complaint, Complainant has failed to establish that Respondent violated the alleged contracting statutes or rules.

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Based on the foregoing,

It is recommended that Complainant’s Complaint be dismissed and that no disciplinary action be taken with regard to Respondent’s ROC License 352159 in regard to Case 2025-10049.

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 Administrative Law Judge Decision. If the licensee accepts the Administrative Law Judge Decision, the Administrative Law Judge 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 31, 2026.

/s/ Kay A. Abramsohn

Administrative Law Judge

Transmitted electronically to:

Tom Cole

Registrar of Contractors

c/o Legal Department

[email redacted]

Valerie Romero

[email redacted]

Arizona 48 Contracting LLC

dba Pro-Tech Coatings

[email redacted]

[email redacted]

James Carter

[email redacted]

By: OAH Staff