ALJDEC - Licensing

2025A-12079-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2026-07-13

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

Jean Sample,

COMPLAINANT

River Valley Restoration LLC

DBA: ServiceMaster Restore,

License No. ROC 343654,

RESPONDENT

No. 2025A-12079-CHC-ROC

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION

HEARING: June 23, 2026

APPEARANCES: Investigator Cliff Corlett appeared on behalf of the Registrar of Contractors. Complainant Jean Sample appeared on behalf of herself. Jessica Fanto represented Respondent with witness Kris Matie.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Fahd Nazir

EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: Administrative notice was taken of the Hearing Packet (Packet) submitted by the Registrar of Contractors. Complainant Exhibits 1 and 2 admitted. Respondent Exhibits A, C, D, E, F, G, H, and I admitted.

FINDINGS OF FACT

River Valley Restoration LLC DBA: ServiceMaster Restore (Respondent) is the holder of License No. 343654 issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (Registrar).

On December 28, 2023, Jean Sample (Complainant) entered into a contract with Respondent for, among other things, restoration/repair of residential property.

On November 19, 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 Cliff Corlett.

On January 2, 2026, after a jobsite inspection, Investigator Corlett issued a Written Directive (Directive) to Respondent that provided as follows:

You must notify the Registrar’s assigned Investigator of your compliance with this Directive prior to 5:00 p.m. on or before January 30, 2026.

***NOTE*** This may not be a reasonable amount of time to complete this project. Extensions may be grantable if parties are communicating and significant progress is being made. . . .

DIRECTIVE REQUIREMENTS

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

Complaint Item: 2 - Drywall - subpar - not level - gaps and cracks Investigator’s Observation: Contract date 12/28/23. Complaint filed 23 months after date of contract. At the time / date of the ROC inspection 12/15/25 the drywall was hung and taped. This is a work in progress and it appears that there have been some insurance, permitting and flood control issues / delays. However, A.R.S. 32.1154-3 Namely R4-9-108 -A & B

A. A contractor shall perform all work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

B. A contractor shall perform all work in accordance with any applicable building codes and professional industry standards. For work to be performed in accordance with professional industry standards, a contractor shall use such skills, prudence, and diligence in performing and completing tasks undertaken that the completed work meets the standards of a similarly licensed contractor possessing ordinary skill and capacity.

RESPONDENT SHOULD COMPLETE THIS PROJECT IN A TIMELY MANNER. . . .

Complaint Item: 3 - Water pipes - broken by contractor and not repaired

Investigator’s Observation: Contract date 12/28/23. Complaint filed 23 months after date of contract. At the time / date of the ROC inspection 12/15/25 the drywall was hung and taped. This is a work in progress and it appears that there have been some insurance, permitting and flood control issues / delays. However, A.R.S. 32.1154-3 Namely R4-9-108 -A & B

A. A contractor shall perform all work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

RESPONDENT SHOULD COMPLETE THIS PROJECT IN A TIMELY MANNER. . . .

Complaint Item: 4 - Smoke damage from fire not cleaned - just drywalled over

A. A contractor shall perform all work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

RESPONDENT SHOULD COMPLETE THIS PROJECT IN A TIMELY MANNER. . . .

Complaint Item: 6 - Contractor taking excessive amount of time to complete work

A. A contractor shall perform all work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

RESPONDENT SHOULD COMPLETE THIS PROJECT IN A TIMELY MANNER. . . .

On January 5, 2026, Complainant emailed Investigator Corlett as follows:

Good Afternoon I requested a few simple things from the contractor today and all of my requests were denied. They continue to not be transparent or cooperative with us. They are also stating that they are not going to finish the work that they have agreed to do unless the insurance company provides additional funds. They only submitted for these funds a few weeks ago. They were well aware that additional funds would be needed and well aware that they only had until 12/27/25 to submit for them and have them approved by the insurance company. They had 2yrs to submit for these funds and failed to do so in a timely manner. They are claiming that this will hold up progress. I respectfully request that they are not permitted an extension until they show significant progress. . . .I have also attached a letter from the mortgage company stating that the mortgage company requires a waiver of lien and will not proceed (release additional funds) without a signed waiver of lien. [Respondent] is refusing to sign the waiver of lien.

The parties exchanged several emails with each other during the Directive period. On or around January 21, 2026, Complainant reached out to the insurance provider for an update regarding follow up on supplemental estimate(s). The email response from Complainant’s insurance provider stated as follows:

As requested from Ms. Sample, here is a breakdown of documents received by [Respondent]. Multiple supplement requests were sent to the claim 11/28/25, 12/10/25. I reached out to [Respondent] and explained I needed a full estimate of the total job including the rest of the work as well as the supplement request. That was provided to the claim on 12-29-25. I have attempted calling [Respondent] on several occasions; most recently, this afternoon. The phone rings but no answer and then call is dropped. Todays call was to (928) 258-2018. I have CC’ed all parties on this email. I have time set aside tomorrow at 9 am with my manager to go over this claim to see if I can speed up the process. I have been significantly slowed down by the volume of documents coming into the file, for which I have to provide file notes on for docs and I explained this to Ms. Sample. Please do not reply to this email or else it will. . . .

On March 20, 2026, Complainant contacted Investigator Corlett for a status update. Complainant told Investigator Corlett that even though the insurance company had authorized additional funding, Respondent had not complied with the Directive. Later the same day, Investigator Corlett issued a Warning Letter to Respondent for a prima facie violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1158. Subsequently, Investigator Corlett forwarded the Complaint to the Registrar’s Legal Department.

On March 23, 2026, Kris Matie emailed Investigator Corlett. The email stated as follows:

Cliff, Can you please advise on this? We have been working with the customer and the mortgage company to get this resolved and have been including you in all of the emails and giving updates. An email was sent to the customer last week to see about the last check from the insurance company and have not had a response. The customer gave us permission to discuss with the mortgage company the week prior (week of 3/9/26). We had called and had a virtual inspection with the bank on 3/18/26 and we are pending the results of the report to get more funds released.

Investigator Corlett replied and stated as follows:

This case was opened approx. 5 months ago, For the last few months both parties have been cc’ing the ROC regarding problems, insurance money, work progress, access, etc. It did not apprar any signigant progress was being made. Both parties made arguments as to why it was not their fault. The case has been forwarded to the ROC legal department. You will be issued a Citation and are required to file an Answer to Citation. You mat certainly plead not guilty and cite all the insurance restrictions. The ROC legal department may agree and dismiss or forward the case to the office of Administrative Hearings. There both sides can tell their side of the matter to an Administrative Law Judge. Also, if the matter gets resolved prior to the yet unscheduled hearing date, a letter from the Compainant can stop the proceedings.

On March 24, 2026, the Registrar issued a Citation against Respondent, charging possible violations of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely Ariz. Admin. Code R4-9-108(A); Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(12), namely Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1158; and Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(22).

On March 30, 2026, Responded submitted a timely Answer. The Answer stated, in pertinent part, as follows:

Respondent contests the charges set forth in the Citation and maintains that allegation contained in the Complaint do not accurately reflect the facts of this matter. Respondent has compiled substantial documentation, encompassing approximately 300 pages, substantiating its position, including photographic evidence, written communications with the Complainant and the insurance carrier, invoice, remediation records, and a detailed account of the circumstances affecting the project timeline. . . . Respondent remains committed to completing the project and resolving this matter in good faith, once we have been paid the next supplemental check which was approved on Feb. 27, 2026. Which we think the Complainant should have received by now, but we have not been paid. . . .

Investigator Corlett testified that this was a fire damage restoration project. The parties had engaged in lengthy email exchanges explaining their respective positions during the investigation process. He testified that Complainant was not properly notified of the jobsite inspection and was not present at the initial jobsite inspection. However, since it was an unoccupied structure, he conducted the inspection anyway. Investigator Corlett testified that he spoke with Complainant the day after the jobsite inspection about potentially conducting a second jobsite inspection.

Regarding the jobsite investigation, Investigator Corlett testified that nothing seemed “particularly as workmanship violation.” When asked during cross-examination, why was Respondent cited if no workmanship issues presented, he said, "it was under 1154-3” because the allegation was that the project was taking excessive amount of time. Regarding Complaint Item 2, Investigator Corlett stated the drywall looked “fine” nothing “subpar just work in progress.” Regarding Complaint Item 3, Investigator Corlett said he did not recall observing any broken pipes. Regarding Complaint Item 4, he said he did not smell or see any smoke damage because drywall work was still in progress.

Investigator Corlett testified that on or around January 5, 2026, Respondent conveyed to him that it was not going to continue working on the project without additional funds. He also indicated that he spoke with Complainant at least twice after the Directive was issued. Investigator Corlett testified that Complainant had told him that she had received additional funds from the insurance company, but given the strained relationship between the parties, she no longer wanted Respondent to complete the work.

Ms. Sample testified that it took five months for permits before Respondent even started any work and then stopped working shortly thereafter. She stated that work would briefly restart before/after insurance inspections, but no substantial progress was made each time. As such, Ms. Sample contended that whatever little progress was made during such periods was inadequate. She described the drywall work as “atrocious”. Ms. Sample argued that Respondent applied for additional funding on or around December 29, 2025, after she had filed the Complaint. Therefore, she testified that Respondent failed to timely ask for additional funding.

Respondent provided testimony through its Operations Manager Kris Matie. Mr. Matie testified that the project was late primarily due to insurance delays and other issues that came up during the restoration work. Namely, he testified that Respondent had worked with and gone through three or more insurance adjusters, with only one of them being available for inspections in person. Mr. Matie testified that other problems included electrical issues and flood control permit issues, which delayed work pending permit approval. Mr. Matie described the delays as “beyond [Respondent’s] control.”

Regarding broken pipes and drywall issues, Mr. Matie referred to Respondent’s documentary evidence and argued that Ms. Sample was responsible for any such damage because she went to the premises without authorization and turned the water on, which further necessitated delays due to additional inspection/repair of affected areas. Mr. Matie denied that Respondent or any of its employees damaged/broke water pipes. Rather, he contended that the plumbing work was still in progress and unfinished.

In closing, Complainant contended that she was a victim and that Respondent delayed the project for two years; Respondent contended that it was aware of the issues and that the delays were beyond its control.

Administrative notice was taken of Respondent’s prior License record on July 13, 2026. Such prior License record reflects that Respondent’s License No. 343654 was first issued on March 13, 2023, and is active. Such prior License record also reflects that there was one open complaint, no prior complaints resulting in discipline, and one resolved/settled complaint 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 contract failed to include the required elements of a contract set forth in Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1158(A). Therefore, Complainant established that Respondent failed to comply with the Registrar’s statute in violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(12).

The evidence established that Respondent’s work was not in conformity with the Registrar’s standards. Significantly, Respondent failed to complete tasks undertaken. Although Respondent argued the delays were not caused through fault on its part, the project was unreasonably delayed and still incomplete after the Directive expired. The record simply does not support a finding that the delays were caused due to reasons excusable under the law.

Therefore, Complainant established that Respondent did not complete the project in a timely manner in violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely Ariz. Admin. Code R4-9-108(A). Notwithstanding the above, specifically regarding Complaint Items 3 and 4, Complainant has not met its burden of establishing by a preponderance of the evidence that workmanship issues resulted in violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely Ariz. Admin. Code R4-9-108(A).

The evidence established that Respondent did not 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. 343654 for one day.

It is further recommended that the Registrar require Respondent to pay the sum of $100.00 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 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, July 13, 2026.

/s/ Fahd Nazir

Administrative Law Judge

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

Tom Cole, Director

Registrar of Contractors

Cliff Corlett

Registrar of Contractors

[email redacted]

Jean Sample

[email redacted]

Jessica Fanto

Stark Law PC

[email redacted]

River Valley Restoration LLC

DBA: ServiceMaster Restore

[email redacted]

By: OAH Staff