ALJDEC - Licensing

2025A-10685-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2026-06-10

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

Jerry Vance,

COMPLAINANT,

v.

REDROCK CONSTRUCTIONS LLC

License No. ROC 347183,

RESPONDENT.

No. 2025A-10685-CHC-ROC

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION

HEARING: May 21, 2026

APPEARANCES: Investigator Steven Avila on behalf of the Registrar of Contractors. Complainant Jerry Vance on behalf of himself. Dimitri Gilles, Qualifying Party, on behalf of Respondent Redrock Constructions LLC with observers Eddie Reyes and Chuck Montgomery.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Fahd Nazir

EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: Administrative notice was taken of the Hearing Packet (Packet) submitted by Registrar of Contractors.

FINDINGS OF FACT

Redrock Constructions, LLC (Respondent) is the holder of License No. ROC 347183 issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (Registrar or ROC).

On or before January 1, 2025, Coli Studio, Incorporated, (Coli Studio) was added to Respondent’s license as a parent entity, whereby the Qualifying Party, Dimitri Gilles, obtained a 25 percent ownership stake in Coli Studio. The intention was to work as partners in building Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU).

On or about February 25, 2025, Jerry Vance (Complainant) entered into a contract with Coli Studio for, among other things, a 400 square foot ADU. Coli Studio was not listed as a DBA for Respondent, and the contract was signed by the Accounting Director for Coli Studio.

On or about March 18, 2025, Complainant paid Coli Studio $60,000.00 as a deposit. Mr. Gilles did not receive any payment from Complainant.

On July 8, 2025, Coli Studio started work on Complainant’s ADU. However, work stopped on or around August 16, 2025, and there was no further activity on Complainant’s ADU. Respondent did not remove any debris from the worksite.

On or around September 18, 2025, Coli Studio disassociated from Respondent.

On October 16, 2025, the Registrar received a Complaint against Coli Studio as “Parent Entity”, using Mr. Gilles’ name and ROC License No. 347183, alleging poor/incomplete work with respect to the project.

The Registrar assigned the complaint to Investigator Steven Avila.

On October 28, 2025, Investigator Avila sent a jobsite inspection notification to Complainant and Respondent. Respondent was not aware of the project until Mr. Gilles received this notice.

On November 13, 2025, Registrar Investigator Oscar Rivera emailed the Registrar’s Legal Assistant II Tedi Quezada asking the following:

Regarding Redrock Constructions LLC ROC 347183 - this company has/had an association with Coli Studio Inc. It appears the association ended on Sept. 18, 2025 (Coli Studio “Parent Entity”). What does this “association” mean? It’s not a DBA but does it mean that Coli Studio can enter into construction contracts with clients as an association? What is the ROC definition of “association” in this scenario?

Ms. Quezada forwarded the query to the Assistant Chief of Licensing Jade Anglin, and her reply was as follows:

Absolutely, Coli Studio Inc was a 25% owner of the beneficial stock or interest of the company. To answer Oscar’s question: No, Coli studio Inc could not enter contracts with ROC 347183, if they wanted to do work under Coli Studio Inc it would have needed to be appropriately licensed with its own ROC #.

On November 19, 2025, Investigator Avila conducted a jobsite inspection; in attendance were three members of Coli Studio, Complainant, and Mr. Gilles. Investigator Avila’s documented his findings in the jobsite general notes as follows:

ITEMS NOT REQUIRING CORRECTION:

Complaint Item: 1 - Listed as contractor on City of Mesa permit but has not completed work since 8-16-2025. Parent entity “Coli Studio” was disassociated from Red Rock Construction on 9-18-2025. Unsafe work site / construction debris not removed from site. Failed to complete ADU project, no scheduled work, materials or trades. Failed to complete scope of work equal to $60k payment to parent entity. Contract with “Coli Studio” is attached, with signed invoice and scope of work.

Investigator’s Observation: At the time of the inspection the representatives from Coli Studio stated that the work performed was contracted under the license of Red Rock Constructions. Registrar does not acknowledge Coli Studio and an acceptable representative of the license #347183 which belongs to Red Rock Constructions. At the time of the inspection Coli studio did not provide any documentation showing that Red Rock received any compensation from the project at 6555 E Nora circle. Red Rock denied even knowing about the project until the complaint was filed and they were notified. A representative from Coli Studio also stated that Red Rock had not received any compensation for the project when asked by the investigator. Because the registrar does not acknowledge Coli Studio as a license holder nor to have the ability to represent Red Rock Construction in the contracting of work it has been determined that in this complaint the respondent has no liability. Homeowner has already filed an unlicensed complaint against Coli Studio and the registrar will move forward with that complaint and the licensed complaint against Red Rock is to be dismissed.

Governing Rule: Not Applicable.

Accordingly, Investigator Avila issued a Dismissal Letter dated November 19, 2025, that stated as follows:

The Registrar received and investigated your complaint. The Registrar determined that there is not sufficient evidence to find that the Respondent Failed to meet minimum workmanship standards per A.A.C. R4-9-108.

It does not appear as though the respondent was liable for the work performed at the residence. Decision made due to no proceeds from the project going to the respondent as all funds were paid directly to Coli Studio and Coli studio was not authorized to contract using the respondent’s license number through the Registrar of Contractors.

Therefore, the Registrar will not issue a citation in this matter. The complaint is hereby dismissed.

Please understand that nothing in this letter is intended to prevent you from seeking relief in another forum.

The Registrar, however, reopened the matter via Written Directive (Directive) dated December 2, 2025. The Directive stated as follows:

After investigation, the Registrar has reopened the complaint and the Registrar determined that you failed to meet the requirements of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A), and now issues this Directive requiring you to take appropriate corrective action. Failure to comply with this Directive constitutes a violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22) and may result in the issuance of a citation, discipline of your license, and a civil penalty pursuant to A.R.S. § 32-1154(E) of up to $500.00. You must notify the Registrar’s assigned Investigator of your compliance with this Directive prior to 5:00 p.m. on January 16, 2026. . . .

DIRECTIVE REQUIREMENTS

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

Complaint Item: 1 - Listed as contractor on City of Mesa permit but has not completed work since 8-16-2025. Parent entity “Coli Studio” was disassociated from Red Rock Construction on 9-18-2025. Unsafe Work site / construction debris not removed from the site. Failed to complete ADU project, no schedule work, materials or trades. Failed to complete scope of work equal to $60k payment to parent entity. Contract with “Coli Studio”

Investigator’s Observation: After the jobsite inspection and the dismissal of the complaint “Coli Studio” has submitted additional documentation to support the association with Redrock Constructions LLC and the permissions given to Coli Studio to use the license of Redrock Constructions LLC, license #347183. Given the additional document and evidence submitted the complaint has been reopened and the Registrar has decided to move forward with the complaint.

At the time of the inspection the casita in question had begun and the complainant stated that communication from the respondent was poor with lengthy lapses. Per the complainant the initial payment was made March 15, 2025. Complainant stated that work was intermittent after the project had begun and around the timeframe of June or July of 2025 the only major work performed was the concrete slab. Complainant stated that he reached out multiple times was told lumber was ordered but no work performed for a lengthy time period. Complainant then added that after the complaint was filed framing began. This was the state of the project as of the date of the inspection performed on November 19th, 2025. Given the factors involved it has been determined that the project was not progressing in a diligent manner.

Allegation has been verified.

Respondent shall complete project per original contract agreement, properly executed change orders, verbal agreements, local building codes and manufacturers installation instructions.

After the deadline in the directive expired, Investigator Avila was notified that no corrective work had been performed.

On March 13, 2026, the Registrar issued a Citation against Respondent, charging possible violations of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(1), Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(14), and Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(22).

On March 23, 2026, Respondent submitted a timely answer disputing the allegations. The answer, in pertinent part, stated as follows: “we respectfully assert that we had not contractual, financial, or supervisory involvement in this project. . . . If evidence exists that Red Rock’s license number was used without authorization, we request that this matter be formally addressed as potential license misuse.”

Hearing Evidence

Investigator Avila testified that ultimately Respondent was responsible legally in this matter because the association with Coli Studio went from before January 1, 2025, to September 18, 2025. Significantly, the contract between Complainant and Coli Studio was entered into during the time Coli Studio had received authorization from Mr. Gilles to use Respondent’s license.

Investigator Avila also testified that at the jobsite inspection, there was a lot that was said between Coli Studio members and Mr. Gilles as to who was liable; however, Coli Studio provided documentation to the Registrar later that warranted reopening of the Complaint and ultimately resulted in a Citation being issued.

Complainant agreed with Investigator Avila’s testimony. He added that although the contract was signed with Coli Studio, the invoice and other documents listed the license number for Respondent. Complainant testified that Mr. Gilles had a history of using the “twenty-five percent rule” to benefit himself and therefore it was his responsibility to make sure the work was completed.

Complainant also testified that Mr. Gilles admitted at the jobsite inspection that Respondent and Coli Studio completed at least two joint projects in the past. He further added that since the disassociation, effective September 18, 2025, was months after Complainant had already entered a contract with Coli Studio, it was Respondent’s duty to ensure work was completed.

Mr. Gilles testified that Respondent had completed two previous projects with Coli Studio in the past. He added that after Coli Studio offered him a 25 percent stake in their company, they reneged on their part of the agreement and Respondent’s license was “hijacked”. Mr. Gilles testified he filed for disassociation from Coli Studio with the Registrar prior to September 18, 2025. He emailed Investigator Avila on March 30, 2026, claiming his association with Coli Studio was “formally terminated on November 27, 2024.” In addition, he testified that he was unaware until the complaints started coming in that the first disassociation had not gone through.

On cross-examination, when asked if Respondent filed a police report to report his license was being misused, Mr. Gilles confirmed that he filed a police report regarding the fraud that was being committed under his license. The City of Phoenix Police Department report number is 26-00236969. When asked if the report was filed in 2026, Mr. Gilles indicated “it could be.” Mr. Gilles testified that he complied with the Registrar to the best of his ability after he became aware of the complaints against Coli Studio involving his license sometime in October/November 2025.

The parties submitted additional documentary evidence for the hearing. However, neither party’s exhibits were admitted due to procedural reasons. Namely, Complainant did not properly serve the documents on Respondent, and when Respondent objected to the evidence being included in the record at hearing, the objection was sustained. Complainant also objected to Respondent’s evidence being admitted in the record as it was submitted three days before the hearing, and the objection was sustained. In addition, because Respondent did not properly and/or timely disclose its additional witness, the witness was not allowed to testify at the hearing.

Administrative notice was taken of Respondent’s prior License record on May 21, 2026. Such prior License record reflected that Respondent’s License No. ROC 347183 was first issued on August 18, 2023, and was active. Such prior License record also reflected that there were eight open complaints.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

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 “[p]roof which leads the trier of fact to find that the existence of the contested fact is more probable than its nonexistence.”

While Mr. Gilles was not directly involved in the contract that Coli Studio initiated with Complainant and possibly may even be a victim of identity theft, that issue was not before this Administrative Law Judge.

At issue in this case was whether discipline should be imposed due to workmanship issues. Complainant argued that he entered into contract with Coli Studio, which had, at the very least, implied permission from Respondent to use Respondent’s ROC license number. Respondent argued that it should be excused for workmanship complaints against Respondent’s license because Mr. Gilles’ entered a contract with Coli Studio, who then misused Respondent’s ROC license number. The contentions are addressed below.

First, as to whether Mr. Gilles filed for disassociation prior to Complainant entering a contract with Coli Studio, the evidence simply does not support such a finding. The Registrar’s records, including the publicly available information on the Registrar’s Contractor Search, established the effective date of Respondent’s disassociation from Coli Studio was September 18, 2025. It is a fact that, at the time Complainant entered a contract with Coli Studio, Coli Studio was still associated with Respondent’s license number.

Second, considering the evidence presented, it has been demonstrated that Coli Studio was listed as the parent company of Respondent and/or Mr. Gilles was listed as a 25 percent owner prior to commencement of this action. Complainant needs recourse against the proper contractor which would be Coli Studio in this matter. Coli Studio was on Respondent’s license and was authorized by Respondent to use its ROC license number at that time; consequently, Respondent bears responsibility for going into business with Coli Studio and registering Coli Studio as a parent entity through the Registrar.

Based on the credible weight of the evidence, particularly given that Complainant signed a contract with Coli Studio, with the contract bearing Respondent’s ROC License number 347183 prior to the September 18, 2025, disassociation, action against Respondent’s license was appropriate and viable. Accordingly, Complainant has established that Respondent through the then-listed parent entity Coli Studio violated Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(1), Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(14), and Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(22).

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Based on the foregoing,

It is recommended that on the effective date of the Order, the Registrar shall suspend Respondent’s License No. ROC 347183 for one day.

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, June 10, 2026.

/s/ Fahd Nazir

Administrative Law Judge

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

Tom Cole, Director

Registrar of Contractors

[email redacted]

Jerry Vance

[email redacted]

REDROCK CONSTRUCTIONS LLC

[email redacted]

[email redacted]

Steven Avila

[email redacted]

By: OAH Staff