ALJDEC - Licensing

2025A-10456-NPC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2026-02-16

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

AC Pro Inc.,

COMPLAINANT,

v.

Bleuwave HVAC LLC,

License No. ROC 340022,

RESPONDENT.

No. 2025A-10456-NPC-ROC

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION

HEARING: February 4, 2026 at 10:30am

APPEARANCES: Peggy Reyes appeared on behalf of Complainant AC Pro, Incorporated with witnesses Sharon Wingate and James Butler. No appearances on behalf of Respondent Bleuwave, HVAC, LLC

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Nicole Robinson

EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: Arizona Registrar of Contractors Notice of Hearing Packet (“Packet”).

FINDINGS OF FACT

Bleuwave HVAC, LLC (“Respondent”) is the holder of License No. ROC 340022, first issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (“Registrar”) on August 9, 2022.

On or about October 10, 2025, AC Pro, Incorporated (“Complainant”) filed a Complaint against Respondent with the Registrar alleging that Respondent had failed to pay Complainant the sum of $15,577.06 for air conditioners, supplies and parts.

Complainant issued approximately 39 invoices to Respondent which were dated from June 2025 through January 31, 2026. On July 14, 2025, Respondent made its last payment to Complainant with a total amount remaining of $14,864.56.

The parties were unable to resolve their differences, and Complainant requested an administrative hearing. On November 12, 2025, the Registrar then issued a Citation for alleged violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(10).

The Citation requested that Respondent file a written answer by November 27, 2025. Respondent filed its answer by email on November 24, 2025, stating in pertinent part, “Respondent is refusing to pay the disputed invoices because the equipment and materials supplied by [Complainant] were defective, resulting in substantial damages to our company.”

The Registrar referred the matter to the Office of Administrative Hearings, an independent state agency, for an evidentiary hearing.

The Registrar issued a Notice of Hearing, setting a hearing at 10:30am on February 4, 2026. The Registrar mailed copies of the Notice of Hearing to Respondent at its address and email address of record.

On December 24, 2025, an order was emailed from the Office of Administrative Hearings to the parties which advised them on how to connect to the hearing via Google Meet. The hearing was held via Google Meet on February 4, 2026 at 10:30am.

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.

Hearing Evidence

Peggy Reyes, the Credit Administrator, testified on behalf of Complainant business, and presented the testimony of Sharon Wingate, Vice President of Arizona Operations, and James Butler, Territorial Manager, of Complainant business. Administrative notice was taken of the Registrar’s packet which includes the Notice of Hearing.

Ms. Reyes testified that Complainant company had been doing business with Respondent since 2022. Ms. Reyes stated that she knew nothing about faulty supplies per Respondent’s answer. Ms. Wingate testified that if Respondent brought in a broken unit, they would have received credit for that faulty unit. However, Ms. Wingate emphasized that no credit can be given when a unit is returned with no model and/or serial number. Ms. Wingate testified that she was aware of only three calls from Respondent into the technical side of the company. Mr. Butler confirmed that Respondent only called in to Complainant’s technical line for assistance but there was no proper return of any faulty unit.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

The Notice of Hearing that the Registrar mailed to Respondent at its address and email address of record was reasonable, and Respondent is deemed to have received notice of the hearing and of the order from the Office of Administrative Hearings.

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 these matters 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.”

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 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.

The purpose of the Registrar’s licensing statutes is to protect the public from unscrupulous, unqualified, and financially irresponsible contractors.

The preponderance of the evidence shows that Respondent owed Complainant more than $750.00 for materials/services provided in connection with Respondent’s operations as a contractor.

The evidence established that Respondent owed a total amount of $14,864.56 for air conditioner units and supplies.

Respondent failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that it lacked the ability to pay Complainant for the goods supplied.

Therefore, Complainant established that Respondent violated Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(10) by failing to pay Complainant $14,864.56 for services or materials rendered in connection with Respondent’s contracting business.

Hence, Respondent’s license should be suspended until it pays to Complainant $14,864.56. Based upon Respondent’s violation of the provisions of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(10), grounds exist to impose discipline against Respondent’s license.

RECOMMENDed order

Based on the foregoing,

It is recommended that the Registrar suspend Respondent’s License No. ROC 340022 issued by the Registrar until it has provided to the Registrar, and the Registrar has accepted, documents that establish that it has paid Complainant $14,864.56 in certified funds.

It is further recommended that when and if the Registrar receives and accepts Respondent’s evidence that it has paid Complainant $14,864.56 in certified funds, the Registrar may close the Complaint in Case No. 2025-10456.

Pursuant to Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 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, February 16, 2026.

/s/ Nicole Robinson

Administrative Law Judge

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

Tom Cole, Director

Registrar of Contractors

c/o Legal Department

1700 W. Washington Street, Suite 105

Phoenix, AZ 85007

[email redacted]

Bleuwave HVAC LLC

1031 W Geneva Dr

Tempe, AZ 85282

[email redacted]

AC Pro Inc.

11700 Industry Ave

Fontana, CA 92337

[email redacted]

By: OAH Staff