ALJDEC - Licensing

2025A-10664-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2026-05-12

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

Heintje Tjahja,

COMPLAINANT,

Coast 2 Coast Real Estate

Investments LLC,

License No. ROC 338318,

RESPONDENT.

No. 2025A-10664-CHC-ROC

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION

HEARING: April 22, 2026

APPEARANCES: Complainant Heintje Tjahja appeared on his own behalf.

ROC Investigator David Fagerburg represented the Arizona Registrar of Contractors. No person appeared on behalf of Respondent.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Kay A. Abramsohn

EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: ROC Notice of Hearing Packet.

_____________________________________________________________________

FINDINGS OF FACT

Coast 2 Coast Real Estate Investments LLC (Respondent) is the holder of License No. 338318, issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (Registrar or ROC) on May 20, 2022.

On or about October 15, 2025, the Registrar received a Licensed Complaint Form (Complaint) against Respondent. The Complaint indicated that Respondent had abandoned the Clay Church construction project and that Complainant had paid $850,000.00 on the $1,000,000.00 contract from March 2024.

The Registrar assigned the Complaint to Investigator David Fagerburg (Investigator). Investigator reached out to Respondent, leaving a voicemail on October 28, 2025, and did not hear back from Respondent.

After rescheduling two times, Investigator conducted a Jobsite Inspection on December 10, 2025, and took multiple photographs documenting the status of the project. Respondent did not appear at the inspection.

On December 10, 2025, Investigator issued a Written Directive (Directive) for Respondent to complete the specified corrective work by December 31, 2025. In pertinent part, the Directive stated as follows:

Investigator Note:

1: Upon reviewing the written contract submitted by the complainant I am able to verify there is at least 1 of the 9 minimum elements of a contract missing violating ARS §32-1158 (A) Minimum elements of a contract. Specifically #9. Warning letter issued.

Complaint Narrative: they collected money for the phase 4 of the project but haven't started phase 4 after collected the money and they are nowhere to be found. He sent pictures of workers delivering the drywalls on sept 17th but upon inspecting the property in the beginning of October the drywalls are not there and none of the contractors return my text nor call

DIRECTIVE REQUIREMENTS

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

Complaint Item 1: Contract was signed for 5 phases. i have paid all the way to phase 4 but they stop working after 3rd phase

Investigator’s Observation: At this jobsite investigation I observed a building renovation project that appears to have most of the framing, septic system and insulation installed with very little to no drywall on site nor any drywall installed. It appears that the project has been abandoned. See P (1) thru P (11). During this jobsite investigation the complainant showed me text messages and photos from the respondent sent on or about the end of September 2025 showing drywall is being

delivered and staged inside the building. Upon reviewing the proof of payment submitted by the complainant I am able to verify the respondent received 4 bank transfer payments starting July 2024 thru November 2024 for a total amount of $827,434.81. I am able to verify the project is not complete. The respondent shall complete the project per the written contract in a timely manner by appropriate means.

Governing Rule: ARS § 32-1154 (A) (1) (Abandonment), ARS § 32-1154 (A) (3) namely R4-9-108 Poor work, not performed in accordance with professional industry standards.

Additional Requirements:

The respondent shall submit a sample copy of a revised contract to this investigator that includes all 9 minimum elements of a contract over $1,000.00 per ARS §32-1158 (A) Minimum elements of a contract by the compliance date listed above.

On January 5, 2026, Complainant notified Investigator that there was no communication with Respondent during the Directive time frame.

On January 6, 2026, 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)(3) - R4-9-108(A)

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.

Charge :3 A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(8)

Failure in a material respect by the licensee to complete a construction project or operation for the price stated in the contract, or in any modification of the contract.

Charge :4 A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(12) - A.R.S. § 32-1158

Failure in any material respect to comply with this chapter; Namely A.R.S. § 32-1158.

Charge :5 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 January 19, 2026. In its Answer, Respondent stated:

Respondent denies that it abandoned the project or refused to perform the contracted work. Respondent asserts that performance was materially impacted and hindered by factors outside of its control, including but not limited to the Owner’s failure to comply with the agreed payment schedule, repeated requests for work outside the approved scope of work and permitted plans, and delays in owner-controlled prerequisites necessary for lawful continuation of construction activities.

Respondent further asserts that certain requests made by the Owner would have required revisions to approved plans, additional inspections, or actions inconsistent with applicable building, electrical, and permitting requirements. Respondent declined to perform work that would violate applicable laws or professional standards and requested appropriate change orders and approvals, which were not completed.

Respondent continued to act in good faith and in compliance with Arizona statutes, rules, and industry standards. Respondent disputes the characterization that the project was abandoned without legal excuse and denies all allegations of unworkmanlike conduct or failure to perform as alleged in the Citation.

Respondent reserves the right to present additional evidence, documentation, and testimony in support of its position and respectfully requests that this matter proceed to hearing or informal resolution as permitted by law.

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, the OAH provided the parties with a continued hearing date, a virtual hearing link, and telephone numbers for the parties’ participation. That ORDER was sent to the parties’ email addresses as had been provided by ROC.

On the date and time set for the continued hearing, Respondent failed to appear through an authorized member, employee, or attorney. Thus, Respondent failed to present any evidence regarding the matter.

At hearing, Investigator indicated that ROC had received back returned mail sent to Respondent. Investigator noted that he had not heard from Respondent at any time during the entire investigative process.

At hearing, Complainant noted that he had been reasonable in dealing with delays due to Respondent’s asserted issues but that there were gaps in communication and then there was a new schedule. Complainant testified that, although Respondent indicated that it had dropped off the drywall, there was not drywall at the jobsite. Complainant had paid Respondent on the project up through Phase 4 and Complainant indicated that no work was performed by Respondent beyond Phase 3.

Administrative notice is taken of Respondent’s ROC License record. On the day of the hearing, April 22, 2026, Respondent’s ROC License 338318 was active; however, on the day of this recommended decision, Respondent’s ROC License 338318 is suspended due to lack of a bond. The instant case is the only open case.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. 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 subsequently utilized by OAH to communicate with Respondent. The parties are deemed to have received notice of the hearing and of the GOOGLE link regarding the hearing.

2. This matter lies within the Registrar’s jurisdiction.

3. 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.’ “

4. The evidence of record established that Respondent stopped work on the project and failed to perform work for which it had contracted and for which it had received payments. Therefore, Respondent’s contracting activities were not in conformity with the Registrar’s standards. The Administrative Law Judge concludes that Complainant established that Respondent was in violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. §§ 32-1154(A)(1); Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely Ariz. Admin. Code R4-9-108(A); Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(8); and, Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(22).

5. The evidence of record established that Respondent’s written contract lacked at least 1 of the 9 requisite minimum elements, specifically element #9, in violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat § 32-1158 (A).

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. 338318.

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, May 12, 2026.

/s/ Kay Abramsohn

Administrative Law Judge

Transmitted by e-mail to:

Tom Cole

Registrar of Contractors

David Fagerburg

[email redacted]

Coast 2 Coast Real Estate Investments LLC,

13444 N 32nd St Ste 24

Phoenix, AZ 85032

[email redacted]

Heintje Tjahja

[email redacted]

By: OAH Staff