ALJDEC - Licensing

2025A-10790-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2026-05-12

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

David White,

COMPLAINANT

CPLLM LLC

DBA: Honest Hands Home Services

License No. ROC 353373,

RESPONDENT

No. 2025A-10790-CHC-ROC

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION

HEARING: April 23, 2026.

APPEARANCES:

Complainant: David White

Respondent: Chris McHale

Registrar of Contractors: Mark Nipp, Investigator

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Nedra-Su Kawasaki

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

_____________________________________________________________________

FINDINGS OF FACT

CPLLM LLC (Respondent) was the holder of License No. 353373 issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (Registrar) on July 16, 2024.

On or about March 18, 2025, David White (Complainant) entered into a contract with Respondent to convert the master tub to a shower and install a guest shower. The total cost of the contract, including labor and materials, was in excess of $10,000.00.

On or about October 19, 2025, Complainant filed a Licensed Complaint Form with the Registrar, claiming poor work.

The Registrar assigned the complaint to Investigator Mark Nipp, who issued a Jobsite Inspection Notice on December 2, 2025, scheduling the inspection for December 30, 2025.

Investigator Nipp conducted the jobsite inspection on December 30, 2025, and Respondent was present. Following the inspection, Investigator Nipp issued a Written Directive From the Registrar to Respondent on December 31, 2025, that provided as follows:

RESTRICTIONS

You may not perform or hire other contractors to perform work that is outside the scope of your license.

If your license is currently suspended for administrative reasons [This means the license is suspended for lack of qualifying party, lack of bond, nonrenewal, Recovery Fund payout, or for any reason listed in A.R.S. § 32-1124(F)], or is inactive, expired, or cancelled, you may not perform any corrective work nor contract in any manner, which includes hiring other contractors to perform work, until the suspension of your license(s) has been lifted or your license(s) has been reactivated.

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

Complaint Item: 1

Master Shower – Uneven walls Combined with Complaint Item #8; Uneven middle wall

Investigator’s Observations: Verified

I inspected the top of the shower enclosure and noted that the individual panels did not line up on the tops. I measure and noted the height differences were between 1⁄4” and 1⁄2”. These panels should be even and flush with each other.

Required Actions:

The respondent is directed to remedy the listed conditions by appropriate means, pursuant to the contract, applicable building codes, and within the scope of their license.

. . . .

Complaint Item: 2

Master Shower – Chipped wall

Investigator’s Observations: Verified

I saw there was a large chip out of the shower enclosure panel (top middle joint).

Required Actions:

The respondent is directed to remedy the listed conditions by appropriate means, pursuant to the contract, applicable building codes, and within the scope of their license.

. . . .

Complaint Item: 3

Master Shower – Hole where walls connect

Investigator’s Observations: Verified

I saw a large hole in the wall behind the enclosure panels (wet wall to long wall). This area should be sealed and waterproofed to prevent future damage.

Required Actions:

The respondent is directed to remedy the listed conditions by appropriate means, pursuant to the contract, applicable building codes, and within the scope of their license.

. . . .

Complaint Item: 4

Master Shower – Gap at bottom of front wall – Combined with Complaint Item #10; Top of the front and back walls not sealed.

Investigator’s Observations: Verified

I saw there was a hollow section behind the shower enclosure panels on each end of the shower ranging from about 2 inches to 2.5 inches. These area should have adhesive or other bonding material in order to protect the integrity of the enclosure panels and to prevent water intrusion.

Required Actions:

The respondent is directed to remedy the listed conditions by appropriate means, pursuant to the contract, applicable building codes, and within the scope of their license.

. . . .

Complaint Item: 5

Master Shower – Front wall cracked

Investigator’s Observations: Verified

I saw there was a large diagonal crack in the enclosure panel (wet wall). The entire corner was essentially broken off and there was lippage at the crack. This is unacceptable and the panel should be replaced to preserve the water-tight integrity of the shower.

Required Actions:

The respondent is directed to remedy the listed conditions by appropriate means, pursuant to the contract, applicable building codes, and within the scope of their license.

. . . .

Complaint Item: 6

Master Shower – Gap on the side of back wall (not sealed) (Combined with Complaint Item #7; Front and back walls not seamed properly)

Investigator’s Observations: Verified

I saw that the front and back enclosure panel was not flush with the middle panels. The back panel was not plumb, creating a gap at the bottom. This is unacceptable because it will allow water to get behind the panels and under the shower pan.

Required Actions:

The respondent is directed to remedy the listed conditions by appropriate means, pursuant to the contract, applicable building codes, and within the scope of their license.

. . . .

Complaint Item: 9

Master Shower – Caulk or Silicone on the walls and throughout the entire shower

Investigator’s Observations: Verified

I saw that there was silicone/caulking residue adhered to the shower floor and enclosure panels. These areas had visible smear marks in them, apparently from attempting to wipe up the excess material.

Required Actions:

The respondent is directed to remedy the listed conditions by appropriate means, pursuant to the contract, applicable building codes, and within the scope of their license.

. . . .

Complaint Item: 11

Master Shower – Shower door not properly aligned

Investigator’s Observations: Verified

I saw that the wall mounts of the shower door were not flush against the enclosure panel and they were not plumb. This created a gap just under 1⁄4 inch behind the frame and allows water to get behind the frame.

Required Actions:

The respondent is directed to remedy the listed conditions by appropriate means, pursuant to the contract, applicable building codes, and within the scope of their license.

. . . .

Complaint Item: 12

Master Shower – Broken base of toilet

Investigator’s Observations: Verified

The Respondent stated that he made a temporary repair to the base of the toilet to determine if he could make a permanent repair.

I saw that the base of the toilet was severely cracked. The crack was in a location that compromised

the structural integrity of the toilet. This is a safety hazard.

Required Actions:

The respondent is directed to remedy the listed conditions by appropriate means, pursuant to the contract, applicable building codes, and within the scope of their license.

. . . .

Complaint Item: 14

Master Shower – Did the plumbing and changed the drain line and moved the drain (Combined with Complaint Item #18 - Created a step-up shower which was a structural change)

Investigator’s Observations: Verified

Both parties agreed that the Respondent moved the drain in the primary bathroom.

Both parties agreed that the Respondent altered the guest room shower by constructing a raised floor in order to accommodate the new shower pan drain.

Both parties agreed that the Respondent did not have a building permit for this project.

Although the Complainant has the primary responsibility to obtain a building permit, the Respondent is required to have a building permit in hand prior to starting construction pursuant to the International Residential Code (IRC); Section R105

I saw that the shower floor had been raised (on a wood platform) about 6-8 inches. This constitutes a structural change that requires a building permit pursuant to the City of Scottsdale. I later reviewed the City of Scottsdale’s building permit information page on their website (https://www.scottsdaleaz.gov/planning-development/permit-services) and noted that a permit is not required IF replacing a plumbing fixture in the same location. In this case, the Respondent moved the drain in both the primary bathroom and guest bathroom. Moving drains triggers the requirement for a building permit.

Required Actions:

The respondent is directed to remedy the listed conditions by appropriate means, pursuant to the

contract, applicable building codes, and within the scope of their license.

. . . .

Complaint Item: 16

Guest Shower and Bath – Trim around the inside of the door was removed and installed improperly

Investigator’s Observations: Verified

Both parties agreed that the Respondent was to re-install the door trim and make it paint ready. I saw that the door trim had been installed in a poor and hap-hazard manner. The mitered joints at both corners were significantly misaligned and unsightly.

Required Actions:

The respondent is directed to remedy the listed conditions by appropriate means, pursuant to the contract, applicable building codes, and within the scope of their license.

. . . .

Complaint Item: 19

Guest Shower and Bath – Side wall is uneven

Investigator’s Observations: Verified

Required Actions:

The respondent is directed to remedy the listed conditions by appropriate means, pursuant to the contract, applicable building codes, and within the scope of their license.

. . . .

Complaint Item: 20

Guest Shower and Bath – Top of front and back walls not sealed

Investigator’s Observations: Verified

I saw there was a hollow section behind the shower enclosure panel that was over 3.5 inches deep. These area should have adhesive or other bonding material in order to protect the integrity of the enclosure panels and to prevent water intrusion.

Required Actions:

The respondent is directed to remedy the listed conditions by appropriate means, pursuant to the contract, applicable building codes, and within the scope of their license.

. . . .

Complaint Item: 21

Guest Shower and Bath – Shower wall is not flush with the shower pan

Investigator’s Observations: Verified

I saw that the show enclosure panel was not plumb and was not flush to the shower pan. The enclosure panel to shower pan gap was about 1⁄2 inch. This condition allows water to penetrate behind and under the shower pan/panels.

Required Actions:

The respondent is directed to remedy the listed conditions by appropriate means, pursuant to the contract, applicable building codes, and within the scope of their license.

With the Written Directive, Investigator Nipp also issued two Warning Letters for working outside the scope of the license and departing from or disregarding a building code; namely, failure to obtain a required building permit.

The Written Directive required Respondent to notify Investigator Nipp of Respondent’s compliance with the directive prior to 5:00 p.m. on January 22, 2026.

On January 27, 2026, Complainant informed Investigator Nipp that no resolution had been reached between the parties.

On January 30, 2026, the Registrar issued a Citation against Respondent, finding cause to charge Respondent with violations of A.R.S. §§ 32-1154(A)(2)(b); 32-1154(A)(3), namely, A.A.C. R4-9-108(A); 32-1154(A)(16); and 32-1154(A)(22).

Respondent submitted an Answer to the Citation on February 9, 2026, asserting that Respondent took full responsibility for acting outside the scope of its license. Respondent had offered to settle with Complainant as directed by Investigator Nipp; however, Complainant was not willing to negotiate.

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

On February 27, 2026, the Registrar issued a Notice of Hearing on Contested Case setting the hearing for April 8, 2026.

On or about March 10, 2026, Complainant requested that the hearing be continued due to Investigator Nipp’s unavailability to appear on April 8, 2026.

On or about March 13, 2026, the parties were notified the hearing was continued to April 23, 2026. The order granting the continuance from the Office of Administrative Hearings advised the parties how to connect to the hearing via Google Meet.

The hearing was held via Google Meet on April 23, 2026.

Investigator Nipp testified in support of his jobsite inspection findings, the Written Directive, Warning Letters, and the Citation. Specifically, he testified that Respondent held an R-62 Minor Home Improvements License which was restricted to projects of $5,000.00 or less including labor and materials, and the value of this project was over $10,000.00.

Complainant did not testify.

Mr. McHale, on behalf of Respondent, testified that he attempted to negotiate with Complainant, but Complainant declined his offer, stating it did not work for him.

Administrative notice was taken of Respondent’s prior License record on May 7, 2026. According to that record, Respondent’s License No. 353373 was ACTIVE; and there was open complaint (instant matter), and no prior complaints 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. Respondent bears the burden of proof to establish an affirmative defense 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.”

A.A.C. R4-9-103 Residential Contractor License Classifications and Scopes of Work provides, in pertinent part, as follows:

R-62 MINOR HOME IMPROVEMENTS

For projects of $5,000 or less including labor and materials, this classification allows the licensee to perform remodeling, repairs, and improvements to existing structures or appurtenances. The minor home improvement contractor shall not perform structural work to any existing structures or appurtenances, including load bearing masonry or concrete work (with the exception of on-grade flat work), and load bearing carpentry work (with the exception of patio or porch covers).

Any work related to electrical, plumbing, air conditioning systems, and boilers must be subcontracted to an appropriately licensed contractor.

The preponderance of the evidence established that Respondent departed from or disregarded a building code in violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(2)(b), specifically regarding Complaint item 14 which was combined with Complaint item 18.

The preponderance of the evidence established that Respondent failed to perform all work 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 preponderance of the evidence established that Respondent knowingly contracted beyond the scope of its license in violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(16). Specifically, Respondent held an R-62 Minor Home Improvements license which restricted Respondent to projects with a total cost of $5,000.00 or less, including labor and materials. Additionally, the R-62 license restricted Respondent from performing any structural work to existing structures or appurtenances, and any work related to electrical, plumbing, air conditioning systems, and boilers. In the instant matter, the total value of the project was over $10,000.00 and Respondent performed plumbing work as described in Complaint item 14 (combined with Complaint item 18).

The preponderance of the evidence 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). Respondent was prohibited from performing or hiring other contractors to perform corrective work outside the scope of the license. Because the entire project was outside the scope of Respondent’s license, the only viable means for Respondent to comply with the Written Directive was to compensate Complainant. Mr. McHale argued that Respondent attempted to comply, but Complainant was not agreeable to Respondent’s offer. However, Complainant was not obligated to accept any offer.

While acknowledging there are no prior complaints reported on Respondent’s license, the undersigned Administrative Law Judge notes the license was first issued less than two years ago. The Written Directive documented egregious work performance. Particularly, height differences up to 1⁄2” in panels that should have been flush, damage caused by Respondent (chipped and cracked walls, cracked toilet base, door trim), gaps and holes all around, improper alignment, and most importantly, Respondent’s disregard of safety, including performing structural and plumbing work (outside the scope of the license) without obtaining a permit, and attempting to repair rather than replace a structurally compromised toilet. After reviewing the record, including the age of Respondent’s license and the egregiousness of the work, there is a heightened concern regarding consumer protection and the ability of Respondent to be regulated.

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Based on the foregoing, it is recommended that on the effective date of the Order, the Registrar shall revoke Respondent’s License No. 353373.

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).

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, May 12, 2026.

/s/ Nedra-Su Kawasaki

Administrative Law Judge

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

Tom Cole, Director

Registrar of Contractors

Mark Nipp, Investigator

Registrar of Contractors

[email redacted]

CPLLM LLC

DBA: Honest Hands Home Services

[email redacted]

David White

[email redacted]

By: OAH Staff