ALJDEC - Licensing
2025A-11653-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2026-07-01
IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
Diana Chiandet,
COMPLAINANT,
v.
JRP Construction Services Inc.,
License No. ROC 338657,
RESPONDENT.
No. 2025A-11653-CHC-ROC
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION
HEARING: June 10, 2026 at 1:00pm
APPEARANCES: Complainant Diana Chiandet appeared on her own behalf with observers John Gates and James Weis. James Petrie appeared on behalf of Respondent JRP Construction Services, Incorporated with witness Adrian Anchondo and observer Linda Petrie. Investigator Charles Riddlehoover appeared on behalf of the Arizona Registrar of Contractors.
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Nicole Robinson
EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: Arizona Registrar of Contractors Notice of Hearing Packet (“Packet”) and Complainant Exhibit 1.
FINDINGS OF FACT
JRP Construction Services, Incorporated (“Respondent”) is the holder of License No. ROC 338657, first issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (“Registrar”) on June 8, 2022 and the license class is a KB-1 Dual Building Contractor.
On or about October 11, 2023, Diana Chiandet (“Complainant”) entered into a contract with Respondent for, among other things, a bathroom remodel and closet remodel. The original contract amount was $47,748.91.
On or about November 8, 2025, the Registrar received a Complaint against Respondent from Complainant alleging abandonment and poor work with respect to the project. In the Complaint, Complainant submitted that she paid Respondent $113,434.63.
The Registrar assigned the complaint to Investigator Charles Riddlehoover. On January 30, 2026, Investigator Riddlehoover conducted a jobsite inspection with both parties present.
On February 20, 2026, Investigator Riddlehoover issued a Written Directive to Respondent 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, March 11, 2026.
. . . .
DIRECTIVE REQUIREMENTS
You are directed to remedy the following violations by the appropriate means:
Complaint Item: 5 – Patch and Repair All drywall areas: Outlets, light switches, doorways, attic access, some dents/dings/scratches
Investigator’s Observation: During inspection, the complaint item was not yet completed.
. . . .
Complaint Item: 6 - Provide Materials/Labor for ALL Plumbing: Sinks not
connected / sinks and shower missing fixtures, toilet not installed
Investigator’s Observation: Respondent shall correct by the appropriate
means.
. . . .
Complaint Item: 8 - Provide Materials/Labor/Install Vanity tops and
shower: porcelain material is defective, damaged, has permanent residue
Investigator’s Observation: Respondent shall correct by the appropriate
means.
. . . .
Complaint Item: 9 - Supply/Install Shower Pan: slope and drainage issue,
water pools and needs correction
Investigator’s Observation: During our inspection it appeared the drain was elevated higher than the tile floor surface. This will need to be adjusted. Respondent shall correct by appropriate means.
. . . .
Complaint Item: 10 - Supply/Install Mirrors Above Vanity: wiring in view in
the lens, not properly installed
Investigator’s Observation: Respondent shall correct by the appropriate
means.
. . . .
Complaint Item: 11 - Supply/Install New Baseboards at Bathroom/Toilet
Room/Closet: none anywhere, no materials provided
Investigator’s Observation: Verified in the primary bathroom and closet.
The Respondent will need to correct this by the appropriate means.
. . . .
Complaint Item: 12 - Paint all Walls/Ceilings/Baseboards: toilet room wall /
areas missing, no baseboards, no paint left for future matching
Investigator’s Observation: Respondent shall correct by the appropriate
means.
. . . .
Complaint Item: 18 - Provide/Install New Wall Mounted Makeup Mirror:
never provided or supplied
Investigator’s Observation: Respondent shall correct by the appropriate
means.
. . . .
Complaint Item: 20 - Install Vanity New Drawer and Door Hardware: never
provided or supplied
Investigator’s Observation: Respondent shall correct by the appropriate
means.
. . . .
Complaint Item: 21 - Garage paint for ceiling. walls, doors are partially
painted. No paint left for matching.
Investigator’s Observation: Respondent shall correct by the appropriate
means.
. . . .
Complaint Item: 22 - Garage attic access trim and door not provided which
will include paint
Investigator’s Observation: Respondent shall correct by the appropriate
means.
. . . .
Complaint Item: 23 - All garage lights have wires hanging and debris
dropping from the attic into the light fixture lens
Investigator’s Observation: Respondent shall correct by the appropriate
means.
. . . .
Complaint Item: 24 - Garage baseboard trim missing in 3 sections.
Investigator’s Observation: Respondent shall correct by the appropriate
means.
. . . .
Complaint Item: 26 - Safe not installed
Investigator’s Observation: Respondent shall correct by the appropriate
means.
. . . .
Complaint Item: 38 - Porcelain shower niche was installed with broken
corner, chips around window / most corners, permanent residue present
Investigator’s Observation: Respondent shall correct by the appropriate
means.
. . . .
Complaint Item: 39 - Paint on closet ceiling has areas not painted. Left over
paint not provided for future matching.
Investigator’s Observation: Respondent shall correct by the appropriate
means.
After the deadline in the directive expired, Investigator Riddlehoover was notified that no corrective work had been performed.
On March 16, 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)(3), namely Ariz. Admin. Code R4-9-108(A); and Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(22).
Hearing Evidence
Investigator Riddlehoover testified that there were many complaint items that he did not verify, however, the items that he did verify were not corrected prior to the directive deadline date.
Complainant testified to her detailed bank records spreadsheet where she initially determined that she paid Respondent $91,121.06. Complainant admitted that some of those payments were made to other vendors. Complainant further testified that Respondent alleged that she stole tools, however, Complainant vehemently denied that allegation.
James Petrie, Qualifying Party, testified on behalf of Respondent. Mr. Petrie testified that Complainant owed a contract balance upwards of $9,000.00 plus $3,078.42 for replacement tools. Mr. Petrie argued that he brought tools to Complainant’s home to perform repairs and he never received them back. Mr. Petrie testified that any defect in the tile was due to the manufacture of the porcelain which Complainant picked out. Mr. Petrie further testified that there were numerous change orders because Complainant kept changing her mind and adding items.
Administrative notice was taken of Respondent’s prior License record on June 10, 2026. Such prior License record reflected that Respondent’s License No. ROC 338657 was first issued on June 8, 2022, and was Active. Such prior License record also reflected that there was one open 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 means “[p]roof which leads the trier of fact to find that the existence of the contested fact is more probable than its nonexistence.”
In this case, Respondent was cited under a job abandonment charge, however, Complainant did not meet her burden of proof on this charge. The evidence established that the project was approximately 80 to 85% complete when Respondent informed Complainant that she breached the contract by refusing to pay per the progress payment schedule. Therefore, the evidence has not established that Respondent abandoned the project in violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. §32-1154(A)(1).
However, the evidence clearly established that Investigator Riddlehoover found many workmanship complaint items that were not corrected by appropriate means. As such, 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 workmanlike manner in violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely Ariz. Admin. Code R4-9-108(A).
In addition, the evidence established that Respondent did not attempt to complete the corrective work following the Directive being issued. Therefore, Complainant established that Respondent failed to take appropriate corrective action following a written directive from the Registrar in violation of 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 338657 for a period of one day.
It is further recommended that the Registrar require Respondent to pay the sum of $50.00 as a civil penalty pursuant to Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 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 Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1101(A)(5), unless Respondent tenders payment of any outstanding prior civil penalty.
Pursuant to Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 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, July 1, 2026.
/s/ Nicole Robinson
Administrative Law Judge
Transmitted by either mail, e-mail, or facsimile to:
Tom Cole, Director
Registrar of Contractors
JRP Construction Services Inc,
[email redacted]
Charles Riddlehoover
[email redacted]
Diana Chiandet
[email redacted]
By: OAH Staff