ALJDEC - Licensing
2025A-11199-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2026-06-12
IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
Don B Marshall,
COMPLAINANT
v.
Three Diamonds Construction LLC
DBA: Affordable Granite and Tile,
License No. ROC 300113,
RESPONDENT
No. 2025A-11199-CHC-ROC
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION
HEARING: May 28, 2026
APPEARANCES: Complainant Don B. Marshall appeared on his own behalf. Jose Martinez appeared on behalf of Respondent Three Diamonds Construction LLC. Investigator Steven Avila appeared for the Arizona Registrar of Contractors.
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Adam D. Stone
EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE:
_____________________________________________________________________
FINDINGS OF FACT
Three Diamonds Construction LLC (Respondent) is the holder of License No. 300113 issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (Registrar).
On or about May 11, 2025, Complainant hired Respondent to remodel his residence in Gold Canyon, Arizona. The total contracted price was $91,454.00.
On or about October 27, 2025, the Registrar received a Complaint against Respondent from Complainant alleging poor work with respect to project.
The Registrar assigned the complaint to Investigator Steven Avila. The jobsite inspection was performed on December 1, 2025.
Investigator Avila then issued a Written Directive on or about December 22, 2025, which provided in pertinent part 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 Friday, January 16, 2026.
. . .
DIRECTIVE REQUIREMENTS
You are directed to remedy the following violations by the appropriate means:
Complaint Item: 1 - New sliding door, scratched, screen does not roll, had screen door replaced.
Investigator’s Observation: At the time of the inspection the screen sliding screen door had been replaced by a second contractor. The registrar's jurisdictions do not cover financial compensation for work performed by others. Screen door appeared to be functioning correctly at the time of the inspection.
At the time of the inspection the door did contain a large amount of scratches. The respondent stated that the scratches were from the manufacturer. Respondent also stated that a possible compensation agreement may have been reached for the scratches on the door, however, no evidence was provided that compensation was given for this line item.
At the time of the inspection some measurements were taken of the rear sliding door for plumb and square. The measurements did not exceed any standards used by the registrar. Homeowner did not provide allegation specific evidence so that any workmanship shortfalls could be measured. Functionality of the rear sliding door appeared to function properly at the time of the inspection.
Allegation is not verified.
Allegation of scratched door is verified. Respondent shall correct by the appropriate means.
Governing Rule: 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.
A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) - R4-9-108(A) Workmanship
Complaint Item: 2 - Poor workmanship on the doorframe. Jose gave written promise to fix #1 and 2 and didn't.
Investigator’s Observation: At the time of the inspection there was an interior doors which appeared to have excessive filler/caulk in the time corners leading to an irregular finish. Allegation is verified. Respondent shall correct by the appropriate means.
Governing Rule: 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.
A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) - R4-9-108(A) Workmanship
Complaint Item: 3 - Soft close installed on all cabinets in kitchen. Not all work.
Investigator’s Observation: At the time of the inspection there were multiple pieces of soft close hardware in the kitchen area in which the soft close functionality was not functioning properly. Allegation is verified. Respondent shall correct by the appropriate means.
Governing Rule: 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.
A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) - R4-9-108(A) Workmanship
Complaint Item: 4 - Poor workmanship on the cabinets in the kitchen.
Investigator’s Observation: This allegation was in regards to misaligned doors and drawers in the cabinet installation along with doors that did not close flush with the cabinets. Workmanship standards state - Tops of cabinet doors must be in the same horizontal plane, within 1/8". This also includes drawers. Respondent should make all appropriate adjustments once within the first year.
There was a location in the cabinets where a decorative portion of the cabinets was damaged during the installation of an outlet and painted over. Damage can still be seen.
Allegation is verified. Respondent shall correct by the appropriate means.
Governing Rule: 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.
A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) - R4-9-108(A) Workmanship
Complaint Item: 5 - Bad paint job in the kitchen done by 3 different people and trades.
Investigator’s Observation: At the time of the location there were multiple locations in the kitchen cabinet installation in which paint overspray could be seen on the interior of the drawers. There were also locations noted which were missing paint, both white and grey painted areas in various locations.
It was also noted that one location suffered damage during the removal of staples and left damaged.
Homeowners were also unhappy with the texture of the newly added portion of the cabinets. This portion had texture which could be seen adjacent to the smooth finish of the surrounding existing cabinets as not matching the existing design.
In regards to the chips in the paint there was at least one location brought forth in which the missing paint appeared to be a gouge, deeper than the installed paint portion of the respondent's work. With the cabinets being installed for months there is insufficient evidence to determine that the paint chips are due to paint failure and not to usage.
Allegation for all the noted shortfalls were verified. Respondent shall correct by the appropriate means.
Governing Rule: 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.
A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) - R4-9-108(A) Workmanship
Complaint Item: 6 - Same problem with paint long with missing paint in laundry.
Investigator’s Observation: At the time of the inspection it was noted that the cabinet doors in the laundry area were built by the respondent. The door fronts were inspected and the homeowner brought forth portions of the doors in which the construction contained very irregular edges which appeared to have been miscut. Homeowner also brought forth in interior cabinet in which was painted with hardware still installed leading to missing paint. There was also thin/ missing paint in other areas of the laundry cabinets. Cabinet fronts in the laundry area were also misaligned after removal for painting.
Paint chips in laundry area are also not definitive in regards to usage vs. workmanship.
Allegation for multiple issues with the laundry area are verified. Respondent shall correct by the appropriate means.
Governing Rule: 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.
A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) - R4-9-108(A) Workmanship
Complaint Item: 8 - Poor workmanship on granite in primary bath and ? Investigator’s Observation: At the time of the inspection the homeowner brought forth areas in the granite counter installation which contained irregular caulk installation. The caulk installation also had voids in various areas. Allegation is verified. Respondent shall correct by the appropriate means.
Governing Rule: 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.
A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) - R4-9-108(A) Workmanship
Complaint Item: 9 - Pantry shelving was agreed upon for them to use melamine they used particle board.
Investigator’s Observation: At the time of the inspection the respondent stated that melamine was not used due to a naked from edge not being white and the particle board being easily painted. Invoice only reflects pantry shelving and does not specify what product is to be used. Therefore no directive to change the material is to be issued.
At the time of the inspection the homeowners did bring forth a portion of the pantry shelving which contained yellowing that did not appear to have been
painted to match the rest of the shelving.
Allegation for yellowing is verified. Respondent shall correct by the appropriate means.
Governing Rule: 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.
A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) - R4-9-108(A) Workmanship
Complaint Item: 11 - Also on #2245 did not receive 4 roll off shelves in laundry room.
Investigator’s Observation: At the time of the inspection the laundry room shelving was standard non roll out shelves. Allegation is verified. Respondent shall correct by the appropriate means.
Governing Rule: 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.
A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) - R4-9-108(A) Workmanship
. . .
(All errors contained in the original).
A Compliance Jobsite Inspection was completed on February 26, 2026, and Investigator Avila noted the following in pertinent part:
Compliance Findings:
Complaint Item: 1 - New sliding door, scratched, screen does not roll, had screen door replaced.
. . .
Compliance Observation: Per the homeowner no work was performed by the respondent per the written directive. Sliding door had not changes since the jobsite inspection.
Governing Rule: 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.
☐ CORRECTED ☒ NOT CORRECTED
Complaint Item: 2 - Poor workmanship on the doorframe. Jose gave written promise to fix #1 and 2 and didn't.
. . .
Compliance Observation: No work performed per the written directive by the respondent. Homeowner had some repairs made after the directive expired.
Governing Rule: 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.
☐ CORRECTED ☒ NOT CORRECTED
Complaint Item: 3 - Soft close installed on all cabinets in kitchen. Not all work.
. . .
Compliance Observation: No work performed by the respondent per the written directive. Homeowner did have some items addressed after written directive expired.
Governing Rule: 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.
☐ CORRECTED ☒ NOT CORRECTED
Complaint Item: 4 - Poor workmanship on the cabinets in the kitchen.
. . .
Compliance Observation: No work performed by the respondent per the written directive. Homeowner did have item addressed by others after expiration of the written directive.
Governing Rule: 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.
☐ CORRECTED ☒ NOT CORRECTED
Complaint Item: 5 - Bad paint job in the kitchen done by 3 different people and trades.
. . .
Compliance Observation: No work performed by the respondent per the written directive. Governing Rule: 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.
☐ CORRECTED ☒ NOT CORRECTED
Complaint Item: 6 - Same problem with paint long with missing paint in laundry.
. . .
Compliance Observation: No work performed by the respondent per the written directive.
Governing Rule: 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.
☐ CORRECTED ☒ NOT CORRECTED
Complaint Item: 8 - Poor workmanship on granite in primary bath and
. . .
Compliance Observation: No work performed by the respondent per the written directive. No change from JSI.
Governing Rule: 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.
☐ CORRECTED ☒ NOT CORRECTED
Complaint Item: 9 - Pantry shelving was agreed upon for them to use melamine they used particle board.
. . .
Compliance Observation: No work performed by the respondent per the written directive. No change.
Governing Rule: 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.
☐ CORRECTED ☒ NOT CORRECTED
Complaint Item: 11 - Also on #2245 did not receive 4 roll off shelves in laundry room.
. . .
Compliance Observation: No change since the issuance of the written directive.
Governing Rule: 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.
☐ CORRECTED ☒ NOT CORRECTED
. . .
On March 12, 2026, the Registrar issued a Citation against Respondent, charging possible violations of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) – R4-9-108(A), and A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22).
On or about March 27, 2026, Respondent submitted an Answer to the Registrar.
On or about April 13, 2026, a Notice of Hearing was issued setting a hearing on May 28, 2026, at the Office of Administrative Hearings, an independent state agency.
At hearing, Investigator Avila testified as to the Registrar’s involvement and the above timeline and findings. Further, Investigator Avila testified that on January 28, 2026, he contacted Complainant to inquire as to whether the corrective work was performed, to which Complainant responded in the negative. Investigator Avila also testified that he called Jose Martinez on the same day, and left a message, but received no return call. Finally, Investigator Avila testified that at the initial jobsite investigation, Mr. Martinez informed him about some credits on the project, and that Mr. Martinez was to provide proof of the same. After waiting almost three weeks to receive the same, Investigator Avila proceeded with the Directive as there was no proof of the credits.
Complainant testified that some of the workmanship was “crazy”, and that Mr. Martinez “ghosted” him. Further, while Complainant acknowledged that there were some credits, they were included on a final invoice at the tail end of the project with other charges for items which were not approved.
Mr. Martinez testified that Complainant received credits for all the complaint items and felt like he was being “double-dipped” by the Complainant and the Registrar. Mr. Martinez testified further that he sent in the paperwork evidencing the credits to Investigator Avila.
Administrative notice was taken of Respondent’s prior License record on June 12, 2026. Such prior License record reflected that Respondent’s License No. 300113 was first issued July 8, 2015. The license record also reflected that there was one open case, namely the present case.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
This matter lies within the Registrar’s jurisdiction. See A.R.S. § 32-1101 et seq.
Complainant bears the burden of proof to establish Respondent’s statutory violations by a preponderance of the evidence. See A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2); A.A.C. R2-19-119(A) and A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1); see also Vazzano v. Superior Court, 74 Ariz. 369, 372, 249 P.2d 837 (1952). “A preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.” Morris K. Udall, Arizona Law of Evidence § 5 (1960).
The preponderance of the evidence established that there was a violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) – R4-9-108(A), as there were multiple issues with the workmanship of the remodel. There was also no persuasive evidence provided by Mr. Martinez that there was any agreement or proof of credit for the complaint items.
Finally, the preponderance of the evidence credibly established that all items remained incomplete, due to Respondent not performing the corrective work. 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 No. 300113 for a period of four days.
It is further recommended that the Registrar requires 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 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, June 12, 2026.
/s/ Adam D. Stone
Administrative Law Judge
Transmitted by either mail, e-mail, or facsimile to:
Tom Cole, Director
Registrar of Contractors
Don B Marshall
[email redacted]
Three Diamonds Construction LLC
DBA: Affordable Granite and Tile
[email redacted]
By: OAH Staff