ALJDEC - Licensing
2025A-10144-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2026-03-06
IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
Diane Elias,
COMPLAINANT
v.
CAM-TEK Contracting LLC,
License No. ROC 290388,
RESPONDENT
No. 2025A-10144-CHC-ROC
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION
HEARING: February 19, 2026
APPEARANCES: Complainant Diane Elias appeared on his own behalf. Fernando Romero appeared on his own behalf. Registrar of Contractors Investigator John Peru appeared via Google Meet.
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Adam D. Stone
EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE:
_____________________________________________________________________
FINDINGS OF FACT
CAM-TEK Contracting LLC (Respondent) is the holder of License No. 290388 issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (Registrar).
On or about January 7, 2025, Complainant hired Respondent to install a bedroom closet her residence in Sun City, Arizona.
On or about October 2, 2025, the Registrar received a Complaint against Respondent from Complainant alleging poor work with respect to project.
The Registrar assigned the complaint to Investigator John Peru. The jobsite inspection was performed on October 30, 2025.
Investigator Peru then issued a Written Directive on or about November 6, 2025, which provided in pertinent part 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 Friday, November 21, 2025.
. . .
DIRECTIVE REQUIREMENTS
You are directed to remedy the following violations by the appropriate means:
Complaint Item: 1 - Closet wall paint incomplete.
Investigator’s Observation: Verified.
At the time of this inspection, I observed areas inside the closet walls that were not uniform, and require touch-ups. REF: (JSI PICS)
Governing Rule: 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.
A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) - R4-9-108(A) Workmanship
Complaint Item: 2 - New Installed closet door paint is rough.
Investigator’s Observation: Verified.
At the time of this inspection, I observed the new installed closet door paint to be flat and rough. REF: (JSI PICS)
Governing Rule: 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.
A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) - R4-9-108(A) Workmanship
Complaint Item: 3 - Existing baseboards in guest room poorly painted.
Investigator’s Observation: Verified.
At the time of this inspection, I observed poorly painted baseboards in the guest room. The original paint was bleeding through. It appears that improper prep was done prior to the painting of these existing baseboards. The respondent stated that they did not charge for this work. The new closet was built in this room, the walls/ceiling were painted in this room as well. The existing baseboards are attached to the project but not clearly addressed within the scope of work. Upon further review, a duly licensed contractor working within a "professional work like manner," should correct the workmanship defects noted, in regards to the painting of the existing baseboards in the guest room. REF: (JSI PICS).
Governing Rule: 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.
A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) - R4-9-108(A) Workmanship. . .
Investigator Peru conducted a Compliance Jobsite Inspection on December 2, 2025, and on December 5, 2025, the Registrar issued a Citation against Respondent, charging possible violations of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) – R4-9-108(A), and A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22).
On or about December 18, 2025, Respondent submitted an Answer to the Registrar.
On or about January 8, 2026, a Notice of Hearing was issued setting a hearing on February 19, 2026, at the Office of Administrative Hearings, an independent state agency.
At hearing, Investigator Peru testified as to the Registrar’s involvement and the above timeline and findings. He also testified that while some corrective work had been performed, there was still paint bleeding through on the baseboards and various touch ups were required.
Complainant testified that the work was still in the same condition as when Investigator Peru completed his compliance jobsite inspection.
Mr. Romero testified that he had done more than his part to complete the job, and that he diligently tried to make Ms. Elias happy. In addition, Mr. Romero testified that the work went well beyond industry standards and was “100% perfect”.
Administrative notice was taken of Respondent’s prior License record on March 6, 2026. Such prior License record reflected that Respondent’s License No. 290388 was first issued on February 25, 2014, and was suspended as of March 2, 2026, for non-renewal of license. The license record also reflected that there was one open case, namely the present case.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
This matter lies within the Registrar’s jurisdiction. See A.R.S. § 32-1101 et seq.
Complainant bears the burden of proof to establish Respondent’s statutory violations by a preponderance of the evidence. See A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2); A.A.C. R2-19-119(A) and A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1); see also Vazzano v. Superior Court, 74 Ariz. 369, 372, 249 P.2d 837 (1952). “A preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.” Morris K. Udall, Arizona Law of Evidence § 5 (1960).
The preponderance of the evidence established that there was a violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) – R4-9-108(A), as painting was not completed for the project.
Finally, the preponderance of the evidence credibly established that all items remained incomplete. Therefore, Complainant established that Respondent failed to take appropriate corrective action following a written directive from the Registrar in violation of A.R.S. § 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. 290388 for a period of two days.
It is further recommended that the Registrar require Respondent to pay the sum of $400.00 as a civil penalty pursuant to A.R.S. § 32-1154(E).
It is further recommended that if Respondent fails to pay the entire amount of the civil penalty on or before thirty days following the effective date of the Registrar’s final order, the Registrar revoke Respondent’s license, effective on such deadline date. No future license shall be issued to any entity consisting of persons associated with Respondent, as defined in A.R.S. § 32-1101(A)(7), unless Respondent tenders payment of any outstanding prior civil penalty.
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 6, 2026.
/s/ Adam D. Stone
Administrative Law Judge
Transmitted by either mail, e-mail, or facsimile to:
Tom Cole, Director
Registrar of Contractors
CAM-TEK Contracting LLC
[email redacted]
Diane Elias
[email redacted]
By: OAH Staff