ALJDEC - Licensing

2025A-10604-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2026-04-22

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

James Maltbie,

COMPLAINANT,

v.

Evolution Dream Builders LLC,

License No. ROC 359121,

RESPONDENT.

No. 2025A-10604-CHC-ROC

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION

HEARING: March 12, 2026

APPEARANCES: Complainant James Maltbie appeared on his own behalf. Arizona Registrar of Contractors Investigator James Carter appeared as a witness. Respondent Evolution Dream Builders LLC did not make an appearance.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Kay Abramsohn

EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: ROC Notice of Hearing Packet (Packet). Post-hearing submissions from Complainant.

FINDINGS OF FACT

Evolution Dream Builders LLC (Respondent) is the holder of License No. 359121, KB-1 Dual Building Contractor, issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (Registrar or ROC) on May 5, 2025.

On or about October 15, 2025, the Registrar received a Licensed Complaint Form (Complaint) against Respondent. The Complaint indicated that the parties had contracted on September 24, 2025, and that Respondent had abandoned the project with no work performed despite Complainant paying a deposit of $22,293.00 to Respondent.

The Registrar assigned the Complaint to Investigator James Carter (Investigator). By letter dated October 21, 2025, Investigator scheduled a jobsite inspection for October 29, 2025.

On October 29, 2025, Investigator conducted a Jobsite Inspection and took several photographs demonstrating that the brick paver driveway installation had not occurred. The photographs further demonstrate that no materials had been delivered, either by or on behalf of Respondent, to the jobsite.

On October 29, 2025, Investigator issued a Written Directive for Respondent to complete corrective work by November 19, 2025. In pertinent part, the Directive stated as follows:

DIRECTIVE REQUIREMENTS

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

Complaint Item: 10 - Contract for installation of a paver driveway

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. Complainant agreed to and paid

deposit for work to be done. Respondent never started work and never

returned deposit. Respondent shall complete project per original contract

agreement, properly executed change orders, verbal agreements, local building codes and manufacturers installation instructions.

Governing Rule: Abandonment of a contract or refusal to perform after

submitting a bid on work without legal excuse for the abandonment or refusal. A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(1)

On November 21, 2025, the Registrar issued a Citation against Respondent charging possible violations of:

Charge :1 A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(1)

Abandonment of a contract or refusal to perform after submitting a bid on work without legal excuse for the abandonment or refusal.

Charge :2 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. The written directive shall set forth the time within which the contractor is to complete the remedial action. The time permitted for compliance shall not be less than fifteen days from the date of issuance of the directive. A license shall not be revoked or suspended nor shall any other penalty be imposed for a violation of this paragraph until after a hearing has been held.

Respondent filed its Answer to the Citation to the ROC on December 6, 2025. In its Answer, Respondent stated the contract had been cancelled in October pursuant to Complainant’s request and that a refund of the payment had been issued on October 15, 2025. Respondent provided documents created by Respondent which attested to the alleged cancellation and payment; however, the Respondent’s submitted documents did not include the Complainant’s alleged cancellation notice. Further, the copy of Respondent’s alleged refund check [Check No. 1005] that was included was the front of a written check and its carbon copy; the Respondent did not include a copy of the negotiated/cleared check.

In its Answer, Respondent requested that the ROC dismiss the Citation. On December 22, 2025, the ROC issued its ORDER denying Respondent’s request to dismiss the matter.

The Registrar subsequently referred the matter to the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH), an independent State agency, for an evidentiary hearing and issued a Notice of Hearing.

Following a continuance request from Respondent, on January 28, 2026, OAH issued an ORDER advising the parties of the continued hearing date and a virtual hearing link and telephone numbers for the parties’ participation.

On the date and at the time set for the continued hearing, Respondent did not appear through an authorized member, employee, or attorney. Respondent did not request that the hearing be continued. Because Respondent failed to appear, Respondent did not present any evidence to defend its license.

Investigator testified regarding the background in this matter. Investigator noted that, on November 20, 2025, Complainant advised him that Respondent had not performed or completed the brick paver installation work and, further, that Complainant had not received any refund check from Respondent.

Complainant testified regarding his efforts to reach out and communicate with Respondent. Complainant indicated that he was unable to locate Respondent’s principals or employees at office locations in Goodyear and in Phoenix, finding that the office locations were either abandoned or not regularly used by Respondent. Complainant further testified that he had received no communication from Respondent since October 8, 2025 and that he had not received a refund from Respondent.

With permission of the Administrative Law Judge for post-hearing submissions, Complainant provided text messages of communications up to and including October 8, 2025.

Administrative notice is taken of Respondent’s ROC License record on April 22, 2026. Respondent’s ROC License 359121 is currently active, and there are three open cases, one of which is the instant matter.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

The copy of the Notice of Hearing that the Registrar mailed to Respondent at its address and email address of record was reasonable. The same address and others, as found within the administrative record, were utilized by OAH to communicate with Respondent. Respondent is deemed to have received notice of the hearing and of the GOOGLE link regarding the hearing.

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 means ‘proof which leads the [trier of fact] to find that the existence of the contested fact is more probable than its nonexistence.””

The evidence of record established that Respondent failed to perform any of the work for which it contracted and for which it took a $22,293.00 deposit. Thus, Respondent’s contracting activities were not in conformity with the Registrar’s standards. Therefore, Complainant established that Respondent was in violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(1).

The evidence of record established that Respondent’s work was not in conformity with the Registrar’s standards in that Respondent’s failed to perform the directed corrective work pursuant to the Directive. Therefore, Complainant established that Respondent failed 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 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 Registrar’s Order, the Registrar shall revoke Respondent’s License No. 359121.

It is further recommended that the Registrar require Respondent to pay the sum of $500.00 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)(5), unless Respondent tenders payment of any outstanding prior civil penalty.

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 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, April 22, 2026.

/s/ Kay Abramsohn

Administrative Law Judge

Transmitted by e-mail to:

Tom Cole

Registrar of Contractors

James Carter

[email redacted]

James Maltbie

[email redacted]

Evolution Dream Builders LLC

[email redacted]

[email redacted]

By: OAH Staff