ALJDEC - Licensing

2025A-10339-NPC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2026-03-13

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

Daniel Gherghita, LLC,

COMPLAINANT,

v.

Jobuilt Construction, Inc.,

License No. ROC 182534,

RESPONDENT.

No. 2025A-10339-NPC-ROC

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION

HEARING: February 25, 2026

APPEARANCES: Daniel Gherghita appeared on behalf of Complainant Daniel Gherghita, LLC. Joe David appeared on behalf of Respondent Jobuilt Construction, Inc.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Sondra J. Vanella

EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: Administrative Notice taken of Agency Record; Complainant Daniel Gherghita, LLC’s Exhibits 1 - 5; Respondent Jobuilt Construction, Inc.’s Exhibits 2, 4 - 7, 9, 11, 12

_______________________________________________________________________

FINDINGS OF FACT

Jobuilt Construction, Inc. (“Respondent”) is the holder of License Number 182534 issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (“Registrar”). Joe David is Respondent’s President. Respondent was the general contractor for a remodel project for the Halderman residence.

On or about July 17, 2025, Respondent contracted with Daniel Gherghita, LLC (“Complainant”) for Complainant to install the kitchen countertops and backsplash at the Halderman residence. The contract price was $10,950.00. Respondent paid Complainant half of the contract price, in the amount of $5,475.00.

On or about October 15, 2025, Complainant filed a Complaint against Respondent with the Registrar alleging that Respondent had failed to pay Complainant the sum of $5,475.00 representing the balance due for the installation of the countertops.

The parties were unable to resolve their differences. The Registrar issued a Citation against Respondent for its alleged violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(10).

Complainant performed all of the work it was contracted to perform. However, on September 11, 2025, in a text message exchange between Complainant and Respondent, Complainant requested payment of the $5,475.00 balance, and Respondent responded: “No. As you know the customer isn’t happy with the job. I am trying to figure out what to do. You were going to email me a quote to fix the problem.” Complainant responded: “As I said, you receive Labor quote after you pay the Countertops Balance,” to which Respondent responded: “Dan unfortunately it appears that you are not a team player. I’m trying to solve the problem and you aren’t helping.”

The homeowners filed a complaint against Complainant with the Registrar, however, the Registrar has not yet determined whether workmanship deficiencies exist that pertain to Complainant’s scope of work because an inspection had not yet been conducted at the time of the hearing.

Complainant alleged that Respondent had been paid in full for the scope of Complainant’s work based upon an email Complainant had received from the homeowner. The email was in response to Complainant’s Preliminary Twenty Day Lien Notice. The email stated in pertinent part: “[Respondent] has been paid in full for your claims by Owner, Aaron Halderman, payment dated July 26, 2025 to [Respondent].”

On July 26, 2025, the homeowner paid Respondent $25,000.00. Complainant contended that this amount was paid pursuant to draw number 7 for the project and corresponds with the payment of draw number 7. However, draw number 7 encompassed HVAC progress, Interior finishes commencement, tile progress, and paint progress. It was draw number 8, the last draw, that included “interior finishes complete,” which encompassed Complainant’s scope of work. Mr. David credibly testified that draw number 8 was not invoiced and not paid by the homeowner. The draw schedule was part of the contract between Respondent and the homeowner and was initialed by both Mr. David and Mr. Halderman.

On September 24, 2025, Respondent sent the homeowner a notice of default due to the failure to pay for an outstanding change order. The homeowner terminated Respondent on that same date. Mr. David credibly testified that the homeowner continues to owe Respondent $30,000.00.

Mr. David credibly testified that in addition to the homeowner’s dissatisfaction with Complainant’s work, Respondent lacks the ability to pay Complainant because: i) the homeowner did not pay for the remainder of Complainant’s work and owes Respondent $30,000.00; and ii) Mr. David has a brain tumor and is no longer working.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

The burden of proof at an administrative hearing falls to the party asserting a claim, right, or entitlement and the standard of proof on all issues in this matter is 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:

Failure 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.

The credible evidence established that at the time of the hearing, there was an outstanding contract balance of $5,475.00 for the countertop installation performed by Complainant. However, Respondent provided credible evidence establishing that the homeowner was dissatisfied with Complainant’s work, Complainant was aware of such, and the alleged workmanship deficiencies are pending review by the Registrar. Moreover, the credible evidence of record established that Respondent was not paid for draw number 8 that encompassed Complainant’s scope of work, is still owed significant sums for the project by the homeowner, and Mr. David is no longer working due to a brain tumor.

Therefore, Complainant failed to establish that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(10) because Respondent established, as an affirmative defense, that it lacks the capacity to pay and has not received sufficient monies as payment for the particular construction project for which the services or materials were rendered.

Consequently, grounds do not exist to impose discipline against Respondent’s license.

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Based on the foregoing, it is recommended that the Registrar dismiss Complainant’s Complaint in Case Number 2025-10339.

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 13, 2026.

/s/ Sondra J. Vanella

Administrative Law Judge

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

Tom Cole, Director

Registrar of Contractors

Daniel Gherghita, LLC

[email redacted]

Jobuilt Construction, Inc.

[email redacted]

By: OAH Staff