ALJDEC - Licensing

2025A-10707-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2026-04-08

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

Jeffrey Zaremba,

COMPLAINANT,

v.

AZ SKY MECHANICAL, LLC,

License No. ROC 349093,

RESPONDENT.

No. 2025A-10707-CHC-ROC

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION

HEARING: April 1, 2026

APPEARANCES: Complainant Jeffrey Zaremba appeared on his own behalf. Respondent AZ Sky Mechanical, LLC did not appear. Arizona Registrar of Contractors Investigator Charles Riddlehoover appeared as a witness.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Sondra J. Vanella

EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: None; Administrative Notice was taken of the Agency Record

FINDINGS OF FACT

AZ Sky Mechanical, LLC (“Respondent”) is the holder of License Number 349093 issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (“Registrar”).

In or about November 2024, Jeffrey Zaremba (“Complainant”) contracted with Respondent for the replacement of a failed condenser unit. The contract price for Respondent’s scope of work was $5,811.51, and Complainant has paid Respondent in full.

On or about October 16, 2025, the Registrar received a Complaint against Respondent from Complainant alleging poor work with respect to Respondent’s scope of work.

The Registrar assigned the Complaint to Investigator Charles Riddelhoover. After a December 18, 2025 Jobsite Inspection that Respondent did not attend, Investigator Riddlehoover issued a Written Directive to Respondent dated January 7, 2026, that provided as follows:

After investigation, 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 Thursday, January 22, 2026.

Complaint Item: 1 - Proposal quoted Copeland M6KP-0075-CAV-072

Condenser - 0.75hp / 220V

Investigator’s Observation: During our investigation it appeared the

respondent installed a Copeland M6QM-H031-IAA-078 0.31hp 110V with no change order / or pricing change. Therefore, the Respondent shall correct by the appropriate means after Bond renewal and license returning to active status.

On or about January 22, 2026, Investigator Riddlehoover received an email from Complainant stating that Respondent had not complied with the Written Directive. Thereafter, Investigator Riddlehoover forwarded the matter to the Registrar’s Legal Department. The Registrar issued a Citation against Respondent charging possible violations of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(2)(a), A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(A), and A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22).

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

The hearing of this matter was scheduled to convene on April 1, 2026, at 1:00 p.m. On the date and at the time set for hearing, Complainant appeared on his own behalf. Investigator Riddlehoover was also present. Respondent did not appear.

On February 23, 2026, the Registrar issued the Notice of Hearing advising the parties of the hearing date and time, and that the Office of Administrative Hearings would issue a Google Meet link for participation in the hearing. The Notice of Hearing was sent to Respondent’s mailing and email addresses of record with the Registrar.

February 25, 2026, the Tribunal issued to the parties an Order that reiterated the date and time of hearing and contained the Google Meet information to join the hearing by video or phone. 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 Riddlehoover testified consistently with his findings contained in the Written Directive. Investigator Riddlehoover testified that notwithstanding attempts to contact Respondent via mail, email, and phone, he received no communication from Respondent during the investigation of the Complaint or during the period of the Written Directive. Investigator Riddlehoover also testified that Respondent’s bond was canceled and would need to be reinstated prior to performing any work.

Complainant testified that he agreed with Investigator Riddlehoover’s testimony. Complainant testified that he contracted with Respondent in November 2024, and that Respondent installed the condenser in early December 2024. Complainant testified that Respondent installed a different unit than what was specified in the parties’ contract and once installed, only produced half of the power of the unit that was contracted for installation. Complainant testified that Respondent acknowledged that it installed a unit that was not specified in the parties’ contract, however, Respondent has been unresponsive to Complainant’s complaints.

Complainant referenced a February 24, 2026 email from Respondent indicating that on February 24, 2026, Respondent ordered the equipment Respondent was originally contracted to install, and that the equipment had an estimated three-week lead time for delivery. Complainant testified that as of the hearing date, he had not heard anything further from Respondent.

Administrative notice is taken of Respondent’s prior License record on April 7, 2026. Such prior License record reflects that Respondent’s License Number 349093 was first issued on December 13, 2023, and is active. Such prior License record also reflects that there is only the instant open Complaint, no resolved/settled complaints, and no complaints resulting in discipline against Respondent’s license.

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 is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.”

The evidence of record established that Respondent departed from or disregarded the contract specifications in a material respect, without consent, and that was prejudicial to another. Therefore, Complainant established that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(2)(a).

The evidence of record established that Respondent’s work was not in conformity with the Registrar’s standards. Therefore, Complainant established that Respondent did not complete the project in a professional and workmanlike manner in violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(A).

The evidence of record established that Respondent did not complete the corrective work following the issuance of the Written Directive and that valid justification for such failure did not exist. Therefore, Complainant established that Respondent failed to take appropriate corrective action following a Written Directive from the Registrar in violation of A.R.S. § 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 Number 349093 for a period of ten (10) days.

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 (30) 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)(7), unless Respondent tenders payment of any outstanding prior civil penalty.

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, April 8, 2026.

/s/ Sondra J. Vanella

Administrative Law Judge

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

Tom Cole, Director

Registrar of Contractors

Jeffrey Zaremba

[email redacted]

AZ SKY MECHANICAL, LLC

[email redacted]

Charles Riddlehoover

[email redacted]

By: OAH Staff