ALJDEC - Licensing

2025A-10658-NPC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2026-02-10

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

LC Concrete, LLC

COMPLAINANT,

v.

Bleuwave General Contracting, LLC,

License No. ROC 311039,

RESPONDENT.

No. 2025A-10658-NPC-ROC

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION

HEARING: January 20, 2026

APPEARANCES: Yvette Lujan appeared on behalf of LC Concrete, LLC. No one appeared on behalf of Bleuwave General Contracting, LLC.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Velva Moses-Thompson

EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: Exhibit A: The Hearing Packet of the Registrar of Contractors.

_____________________________________________________________________

FINDINGS OF FACT

LC Concrete agreed to perform concrete work for Bleuwave at Cass High

School in Douglas, AZ.

Complainant performed the work in October of 2025 and sent an invoice to

Bleuwave the same month, for $49,520.00.

Bleuwave did not pay the invoice.

On October 15, 2025, LC Concrete filed a complaint against Bleuwave

alleging that Bleuwave failed to pay $49,520.00 for the concrete work that LC Concrete performed at Cass High School.

On November 25, 2025, the Registrar issued a Citation against Bleuwave’s

license, alleging that Bleuwave violated Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(10).

Bluewave filed a timely response to the Citation. In its answer, Bluewave

alleged that it received notice that the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) would impose a lien or levy for the amount owed to LC Concrete.

Yvette Luhan owns LC Concrete.

LC Concrete received a notice from IRS dated October 3, 2025, showing IRS

was not issuing a levy or lien at that time. See Exhibit A, pg. 13.

Ms. Luhan provided the notice to Bleuwave.

Bleuwave did not pay the invoice for the amount of $49,520.00.

The matter was referred to the Office of Administrative Hearings for an

evidentiary hearing.

A hearing was held on January 20, 2026.

At hearing, Ms. Lujan and William Carpenter testified on behalf of LC

Concrete. Ms. Lujan explained that Bleuwave did not pay LC Concrete for the concrete work that it performed.

At hearing, Mr. Carpenter explained that he was the Senior Project Manager

for Bleuwave at the time of construction. Mr. Carpenter verified and approved all work performed by LC Concrete.

Bluewave did not request to appear telephonically and did not request that

the hearing be continued. Although the start of the duly noticed hearing was delayed fifteen minutes to allow Bleuwave additional travel time, Bleuwave did not appear, through an authorized officer, employee, or attorney, and did not contact OAH to request that the start of the hearing be further delayed. Consequently, Bleuwave did not present any evidence to defend its license.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

A party asserting a claim, right, or entitlement bears the burden of proof; a party asserting an affirmative defense has the burden of establishing the affirmative defense. The standard of proof on all issues in this matter is that of a preponderance of the evidence. Ariz. Admin. Code section R2-19-119.

“At a hearing on an agency action to suspend, revoke, terminate or modify on its own initiative material conditions of a license or permit, the agency has the burden of persuasion.” Ariz. Rev. Stat. section 41-1092.07(G)(2).

A preponderance of the evidence is:

The greater weight of the evidence, not necessarily established by the greater number of witnesses testifying to a fact but by evidence that has the most convincing force; superior evidentiary weight that, though not sufficient to free the mind wholly from all reasonable doubt, is still sufficient to incline a fair and impartial mind to one side of the issue rather than the other.

Black’s Law Dictionary 1373 (10th ed. 2014).

Statutes should be interpreted to provide a fair and sensible result. Gutierrez v. Industrial Commission of Arizona, 226 Ariz. 395, 249 P.3d 1095 (2011)(citation omitted); State v. McFall, 103 Ariz. 234, 238, 439 P.2d 805, 809 (1968) ("Courts will not place an absurd and unreasonable construction on statutes.").

“Statutes shall be liberally construed to effect their objects and to promote justice.” Ariz. Rev. Stat. section 1-211(B).

The purpose of the Registrar’s licensing statutes is to protect the public from unscrupulous, unqualified, and financially irresponsible contractors. See Aesthetic Property Maintenance v. Capital Index. Corp., 183 Ariz. 74, 900 P. 2d 1210 (1995).

Ariz. Rev. Stat section 32-1154(A) provides that:

The holder of a license or any person listed on a license pursuant to this chapter shall not commit any of the following acts or omissions: .... 10. Failure by a licensee or agent or official of a licensee to pay monies in excess of seven hundred fifty dollars when due for materials or services rendered in connection with the licensee's operations as a contractor when the licensee has the capacity to pay or, if the licensee lacks the capacity to pay, when the licensee has received sufficient monies as payment for the particular construction work project or operation for which the services or materials were rendered or purchased.

Ariz. Rev. Stat section 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 . . . to pay monies in excess of seven hundred fifty dollars when due for materials or services rendered in connection with the licensee’s operations as a contractor when the licensee has the capacity to pay or, if the licensee lacks the capacity to pay, when the licensee has received sufficient monies as payment for the particular construction work project or operation for which the services or materials were rendered or purchased.”

10. The preponderance of the evidence shows that Bleuwave violated Ariz. Rev. Stat section 32-1154(A)(10) as alleged.

ORDER

IT IS ORDERED that on the effective date of the final Order in this matter, Bleuwave General Contracting, LLC’s ROC License number 311039 is suspended, unless the Registrar receives and accepts written verification that Bleuwave has paid to LC Concrete, LLC, $49,520.00 in certified funds.

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, February 10, 2026.

/s/ Velva Moses-Thompson

Administrative Law Judge

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

Tom Cole, Director

Registrar of Contractors

LC Concrete LLC

[email redacted]

Bleuwave General Contracting LLC

[email redacted]

By: OAH Staf