ALJDEC - Licensing

2025A-11353-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2026-06-18

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

John Gerard Horrigan,

COMPLAINANT,

v.

Robinson Renovations and

Construction, LLC

License No. ROC 343370,

RESPONDENT.

No. 2025A-11353-CHC-ROC

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION

HEARING: June 3, 2026

APPEARANCES: Complainant John Horrigan appeared on his own behalf. Thomas Robinson appeared on behalf of Respondent Robinson Renovations and Construction, LLC. Arizona Registrar of Contractors Investigator Mark Nipp appeared as a witness.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Sondra J. Vanella

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

FINDINGS OF FACT

Robinson Renovations and Construction, LLC (“Respondent”) is the holder of License Number 343370 issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (“Registrar”). Thomas Robinson is Respondent’s Qualifying Party and sole Member.

On or about August 18, 2025, John Horrigan (“Complainant”) contracted with Respondent for Respondent to install Level 5 drywall in the newly constructed addition of Complainant’s home. The contract price was $3,000.00. Complainant has paid Respondent in full.

On or about October 31, 2025, the Registrar received a Complaint against Respondent from Complainant alleging poor work with respect to the project.

The Registrar assigned the Complaint to Investigator Mark Nipp. After a December 4, 2025 Jobsite Inspection, Investigator Nipp issued a Written Directive to Respondent dated December 4, 2025, 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 Wednesday, December 31, 2025.

DIRECTIVE REQUIREMENTS

The complaint items annotated as “Verified” require corrective work. You are directed to remedy the violations by the appropriate means.

Verified

Complaint Item: Level 5 drywall not completed correctly.

Cracking at tape joints in 10 different places.

Investigator’s Initial Observations:

I inspected the items the Complainant had marked with blue

tape and noted the following. I saw divots, cracks, pin holes, tape

seams, tool marks, excess drywall mud, bubbles, excessive

drywall mud in window frames/corners, and cracks throughout

the entire project. In each blue taped location there were

workmanship defects.

According to the Gypsum Association Levels of Finish document

(GA-214-2021):

All joints and interior angles shall have tape embedded in joint

compound and shall be immediately wiped with a joint knife

leaving a thin consistent coating of joint compound over all

joints and interior angles. Two (2) separate coats of joint

compound shall be applied over all flat joints and one (1)

separate coat of joint compound shall be applied over interior

angles. Fastener heads and accessories shall be covered with

three (3) separate coats of joint compound. A skim coat of joint

compound or a material manufactured especially for this

purpose shall be applied to the entire surface. The surface shall

be smooth and free of tool marks.

(20251204_Gypsum Association Standards ga-214-

2021_17_2025-11353.pdf)

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.

Reference Picture(s): 2-46

On December 29, 2025, Respondent requested an extension of the deadline for compliance with the Written Directive. Investigator Nipp granted the extension via email, extending the deadline for compliance to January 8, 2026.

On February 3, 2026, Investigator Nipp conducted a Compliance Jobsite Inspection. Investigator Nipp documented his observations in his Compliance Jobsite Inspection Notes as follows:

Compliance Inspection Conducted 02/03/2026 @ 1130:

Compliance Inspection Observations:

I inspected the project and noted there did appear to be some

improvement on the ceiling; however, the corrective work did not

meet the requirements of a Level 5 drywall finish. I saw that

there was no apparent change to the condition of any of the

interior walls. I observed that the Complainant’s blue tape was

still present and inspected each marked location. I saw that the

walls had an excessive amount of divots, cracks, pin holes, tape

seams, tool marks, excess drywall mud, and bubbles. Essentially,

there was no substantial change in the project and the end result

does not meet the standards for a Level 5 drywall finish.

The Respondent has not complied with the Registrar’s Written

Directive requiring corrective work.

☐ Corrected ☒ Not Corrected

Thereafter, Investigator Nipp forwarded the Complaint to the Registrar’s Legal Department. The Registrar issued a Citation against Respondent charging possible violations of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(a), and A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22).

Respondent timely filed a written Answer to the Citation and the matter was referred to the Office of Administrative Hearings, an independent State agency, for an administrative hearing.

Investigator Nipp testified consistently with the findings contained in the Written Directive and Compliance Inspection Notes. Investigator Nipp testified regarding the levels of finish specified by the Gypsum Association, specifically Level 5. Investigator Nipp referenced numerous photographs that he took during his inspections, all of which depicted the deficiencies in Respondent’s work. Investigator Nip testified that corrective work must be accomplished in a professional and workmanlike manner and that if additional defects are created during the course of corrective work, a contractor is responsible for the resultant defects. Further, a contractor is responsible for the provision of materials necessary to perform corrective work during the period of a Written Directive.

Investigator Nipp testified that there were no allegations concerning a denial of access as a barrier to performing the corrective work.

Complainant agreed with Investigator Nipp’s testimony, and also testified that the job was not completed correctly.

Mr. Robinson testified that he did not understand the scope of the required corrective work. Mr. Robinson further testified that he “thought it would look good after [it was painted].” Mr. Robinson explained that he did not attend either the Jobsite Inspection or the Compliance Inspection because he had “other things to attend to.” Mr. Robinson asserted that Respondent showed “due diligence and professionalism” and he “feels [Respondent] was fully compliant.”

Administrative notice is taken of Respondent’s prior License record on June 15, 2026. Such prior License record reflects that Respondent’s License Number 343370 was first issued on February 23, 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 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 established that Respondent did not complete the corrective work following the Written Directive being issued, notwithstanding an extension of the period in which to comply. Further, Respondent failed to establish any affirmative defense to establish valid justification for such failure. 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 343370 for a period of seven (7) 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, June 18, 2026.

/s/ Sondra J. Vanella

Administrative Law Judge

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

Tom Cole, Director

Registrar of Contractors

John Gerard Horrigan

[email redacted]

Robinson Renovations and Construction, LLC

[email redacted]

Mark Nipp

[email redacted]

By: OAH Staff