ALJDEC - Licensing

2025A-11698-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2026-04-24

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

Dara Levitch,

COMPLAINANT

v.

KLB Remodel, LLC

License No. ROC 316821,

RESPONDENT

No. 2025A-11698-CHC-ROC

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION

HEARING: April 9, 2026

APPEARANCES: Complainant Dara Levitch appeared on her own behalf. Registrar of Contractors Investigator John Chester appeared via Google Meet.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Adam D. Stone

EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE:

_____________________________________________________________________

FINDINGS OF FACT

KLB Remodel LLC (Respondent) was the holder of License No. 316821 issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (Registrar).

On or about April 15, 2025, Complainant hired Respondent to remodel her kitchen at her residence in Lake Havasu City, Arizona. The total contracted price was $30,500.00 (with a $1,000.00 credit), and Complainant paid $29,600.00.

On or about November 10, 2025, the Registrar received a Complaint against Respondent from Complainant alleging poor work with respect to project.

The Registrar assigned the complaint to Investigator John Chester. The jobsite inspection was performed on December 11, 2025.

Investigator Chester then issued a Written Directive on or about December 18, 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 30, 2026.

. . .

DIRECTIVE REQUIREMENTS

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

Complaint Item 1: Wrong size cabinet face for cabinet drawer by the sink Investigator’s Observation: The face of the cabinet drawer is smaller than rest of cabinets, respondent to correct by appropriate means.

Governing Rule: ARS §32-1154 (A) (3), namely R4-9-108, Poor work not performed in accordance with professional industry standards

Complaint Item 2: Inserts are missing for the cabinet by the sink Investigator’s Observation: Cabinet inserts have not been installed in bottom cabinet, respondent to correct by appropriate means.

Governing Rule: ARS §32-1154 (A) (3), namely R4-9-108, Poor work not performed in accordance with professional industry standards

Complaint Item 3: Drawer by sink over cabinet out of alignment

Investigator’s Observation: During inspection verified drawer is not operating properly on tracks, respondent will need to fix by appropriate means.

Governing Rule: ARS §32-1154 (A) (3), namely R4-9-108, Poor work not performed in accordance with professional industry standards

Complaint Item 4: Electric socket plate is covered by tile, needs holes for plate cover Investigator’s Observation: There is not outlet plate behind toaster oven due to the tile covering the holes, respondent will need to correct by appropriate means to secure cover plate.

Governing Rule: ARS §32-1154 (A) (3), namely R4-9-108, Poor work not performed in accordance with professional industry standards

Complaint Item 6: Some cabinets need to be finished or spaces covered up Investigator’s Observation: During inspection cabinet doors are spaced too far apart and can see into cabinet, also multiple cabinet doors are bowed out, respondent will need to correct all affected doors by appropriate means.

Governing Rule: ARS §32-1154 (A) (3), namely R4-9-108, Poor work not performed in accordance with professional industry standards

Complaint Item 7: Garbage in garage needs to be removed (scraps of cabinetry) Investigator’s Observation: Multiple pieces of trim and cabinet skin left in garage from cabinet install that need to be removed, respondent needs to remove cabinet scraps by appropriate means.

Governing Rule: ARS §32-1154 (A)(1) Abandonment of a contract or refusal to perform after submitting a bid on work without legal excuse for the abandonment or refusal.

. . .

(All errors contained in the original).

On February 3, 2026, the Registrar issued a Citation against Respondent, charging possible violations of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(1); A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) – R4-9-108(A); and A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22).

On or about February 17, 2026, Respondent submitted an Answer to the Registrar.

On or about March 2, 2026, a Notice of Hearing was issued setting a hearing on December 22, 2025, at the Office of Administrative Hearings, an independent state agency. A copy of the same was mailed and e-mailed to Respondent at its addresses of record. On March 2, 2026, the tribunal sent an Order containing the Google Meet information to Respondent’s e-mail address of record.

Although the start of the hearing was delayed 15 minutes, Respondent did not appear through an authorized member, employee, or attorney, and did not request that the hearing be continued. Consequently, Respondent did not present any evidence to defend its license.

At hearing, Investigator Chester testified as to the Registrar’s involvement and the above timeline and findings. He testified that no representative from Respondent appeared at the Jobsite Inspection. Further, Investigator Chester testified that due to the holidays, he provided Respondent with a longer corrective work period, but that no work was completed.

Complainant testified that the work was still in the same condition as when Investigator Chester completed his compliance jobsite inspection. Complainant also testified that there were multiple items that simply were not completed, such as installation of the correct pantry door, and no insert in the cabinet. Further, Complainant also testified that some of the work which was done was done poorly, such as the incorrect depth on the cabinet, and the shelves not being adjustable.

Administrative notice was taken of Respondent’s prior License record on April 24, 2026. Such prior License record reflected that Respondent’s License No. 316821 was first issued on December 5, 2017, and was suspended as of March 17, 2026, for “Lack of Bond”. The license record also reflected that there were two open cases, one of which included the present case, and one “Disciplined Case”.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

This matter lies within the Registrar’s jurisdiction. See A.R.S. § 32-1101 et seq.

Respondent was deemed to have received the Notice of Hearing by methods reasonably calculated to effect notice. The Registrar mailed copies of the Notice of Hearing on Contested Case to its address and email address of record, and the Office of Administrative Hearings sent the order setting the continued hearing date to Respondent at its email address of record.

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)(1), as Complainant paid in full and work was never completed.

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 work which was completed.

Finally, the preponderance of the evidence credibly established that all items remained incomplete. 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).

Given Respondent’s failure to appear at the Jobsite Inspection, failure to perform the corrective work, failure to appear at the hearing, and its cancellation of its bond, Respondent has proven to be unregulatable.

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. 316821.

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 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 24, 2026.

/s/ Adam D. Stone

Administrative Law Judge

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

Tom Cole, Director

Registrar of Contractors

Dara Levitch

[email redacted]

KLB Remodel, LLC

[email redacted]

By: OAH Staff