ALJDEC - Licensing
2025A-12085-NPC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2026-02-24
IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
James Tanner,
COMPLAINANT,
v.
CB Remodeling LLC
ROC License No. 338654,
RESPONDENT.
No. 2025A-12085-NPC-ROC
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION
HEARING: February 11, 2026 at 3:00 PM.
APPEARANCES: James Tanner (“Complainant”) appeared on his own behalf. James Borrelli appeared on behalf of CB Remodeling LLC (“Respondent”) with Jeff Seeber as a witness. Cameron Borrelli observed.
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Jenna Clark.
EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: The Notice of Hearing on Contested Case (“Notice of Hearing”), including the referring agency’s attached administrative file, and January 07, 2026, Hearing Order were admitted into the evidentiary record.
_____________________________________________________________________
After review of the hearing record in this matter, the undersigned Administrative Law Judge makes the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, and issues this Recommended Order to the Director of the Registrar.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Background and Procedure
Pursuant to Arizona Administrative Code (“Ariz. Admin. Code”) R4-9-117, Administrative Notice is taken of Respondent’s license files as shown on the Registrar’s public website. On June 08, 2022, the Registrar issued ROC License No. 338654 for General Dual KB-1 contracting to Respondent. Respondent’s license is active, in good standing, and renewed through June 30, 2026. Cameron Bryce Borrelli is listed as the Qualifying Party, Manager, and Member and on the license. The address of record for the license is 101 E. Sabrosa Dr. New River, Arizona 85087. Respondent has a $40,000.00 surety bond for the license issued through American Contractors Indemnity Company, effective May 12, 2022. The license has no prior disciplinary history. Currently, the record reflects that there is one (1) open complaint against the license, which is presumed to be related to this matter.
On November 18, 2025, the Registrar received a complaint from Complainant alleging nonpayment of services and/or materials against Respondent. Specifically, Complainant alleged that Respondent had failed to remit timely payment(s) on one (1) invoice totaling $2,029.18 regarding subcontract work performed in Tempe, Arizona. The Registrar designated it Complaint No. 2025-12085 and assigned the case to their legal department for review.
On December 08, 2025, the Registrar issued a Citation to Respondent for an alleged violation(s) of Ariz. Rev. Stat § 32-1154(A)(10). Respondent was notified that a failure to provide an Answer by December 23, 2025, would be deemed as an admission of Respondent’s commission of the act(s) charged in the underlying complaint, pursuant to Ariz. Rev. Stat § 32-1155(B), and could result in discipline against Respondent’s license including suspension or revocation.
It is unclear from the agency record when, if ever, the Registrar received a timely Answer on behalf of Respondent.
On December 22, 2025, this matter was referred to the Office of Administrative Hearings (“OAH”), an independent state agency, for an evidentiary hearing on February 11, 2026. Per the January 05, 202g, Notice of Hearing the issue(s) to be determined are whether the Registrar has cause to discipline Respondent’s license based on the following charge(s) alleged in the Citation:
Charge 1: A violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(10).
Hearing Evidence
Complainant testified on his own behalf. James Borrelli and Jeff Seeber testified on behalf of Respondent. The substantive evidence of record is as follows:
Complainant is Respondent’s subcontractor. Complainant holds ROC License No. 181170 CR-60 Finish Carpentry, ROC License No. 109888 CR-48 Ceramic Plastic and Metal Tile, and ROC License No. 213211 CR-8 Floor Covering issued by the Registrar issued October 30, 1995, through October 28, 2005. All licenses are active and in good standing with the Registrar.
On an unknown date, Respondent was hired to perform a residential bathroom remodel at 1709 S. Parkside Dr. Tempe, Arizona 85281 (“Parkside”).
On October 23, 2025, Respondent issued a $2,263.26 Bid Request to Complainant for the Parkside project, that included the following scope of work:
Bathroom remodel (Tub walls)
Hall Bathroom:
60x30 alcove tub @ 22" H
8' ceilings - tub to ceiling wall tile
Installation of 12x24 customer supplied wall tile
1/16" grout joint
Brushed nickel Schluter
Water proofing & install requirements:
Mud set shower pan with rubber liner (Showers)
Hardboard walls with 100 percent silicone smashed in all seams (must be screwed off between 12-16" max
Tape & mud all seams with fiber tape and thinset
Waterproof all seams with red guard or aqua defense
All walls must be plumb
Always center walls unless specified
All walls and vertically installed tile to be on top of tile laid horizontally
On or about October 28, 2025, the parties entered into a subcontract agreement for the Parkside project. Specifically, Complainant was to prep the wall, waterproof, and install a shower, tile, and trim. No demolition was necessary. Plumbing was scheduled with another contractor, who was supposed to complete his scope of work prior to Complainant commencing his as Complainant was scheduled to work over the plumbed area.
Article 1, section 2.05 of the parties’ subcontract agreement provides as follows:
Subcontractor represents and warrants that prior to commencing the Work it has thoroughly examined the Subcontract Documents and the site of the Work and will have ascertained the job site conditions to be encountered in the performance of its obligations hereunder including without limitation, verifications of lines, grades, and measurements. Subcontractor shall verify that all work, storage and access areas and surfaces related to the Work are satisfactory. The commencement of the Work by Subcontractor shall be deemed Subcontractor's acceptance of the job site and all access and storage areas. All services to be performed by Subcontractor shall be completed in the manner and with the quality prevailing among Subcontractors of superior knowledge and skill.
Article 2, section 2.07 of the parties’ subcontract agreement provides as follows:
Subcontractor shall notify [Respondent] in writing of any discrepancy, error, conflict, or omission discovered by Subcontractor in the Subcontract Documents or the site conditions prior to performing any Work. No additional compensation for discovery of the foregoing shall be given to Subcontractor without written approval from [Respondent]. Subcontractor waives the right to additional compensation for such discovery if commencement of and/or continuation of the Work subsequent to such discovery if not approved by [Respondent] in advance.
Article 4, section 4.03 of the parties’ subcontract agreement provides as follows:
Subcontractor agrees to keep informed as to the progress of the Project and to faithfully perform the Work in such order as [Respondent]considers necessary to keep the Project on schedule and to avoid any delay in completion.
Article 5, section 5.03 of the parties’ subcontract agreement provides as follows:
To the extent approved by the Project Owner, unless otherwise agreed upon, progress payments less retainage shall be payable to Subcontractor seven (10) calendar days after payment is received by [Respondent]from the (customer) Project Owner.
Article 5, section 5.06 of the parties’ subcontract agreement provides, in pertinent part, as follows:
Retention, if applicable, shall be released and final payment shall be made to Subcontractor within 30 days after final completion and acceptance of the Project by the Project Owner (or its representative) and [Respondent], provided that: (a) Subcontractor shall have completed its Work to the full satisfaction of [Respondent]and Project Owner (or its representative); (b) [Respondent]has received final payment from the Project Owner; (c) all subcontractors and materialmen have been fully paid and waive their lien rights and/or bond claims on the Project. [Respondent’s] obligation to make final payment is subject to, Subcontractor furnishing proof satisfactory to [Respondent]that all labor, materials, and other obligations incurred by Subcontractor in connection with performance of the Work have been paid or otherwise resolved.
Article 9, section 9.02 of the parties’ subcontract agreement provides, in pertinent part, as follows:
If Subcontractor is liable of a material breach or a provision of this Agreement, and fails within 48 hours after receipt of written notice to commence and continue satisfactory correction of such default with diligence and promptness, then [Respondent], without prejudice to any rights or remedies, shall have the right to (c) Withhold payments of any monies due Subcontractor under this Agreement pending corrective action to the extent required by and to the satisfaction of [Respondent].
Complainant completed his scope of work October 30, 2025, to November 01, 2025. During that time an additional 2x4 was installed to support the existing framing and properly prepare for additional construction.
On November 03, 2025, Complainant notified Respondent that his portion of the Parkside project was complete. Later that same day, Mr. Seeber informed Complainant that he had inspected Complainant’s work and approved it. Mr. Seeber instructed Complainant to submit his invoice for payment under job code #25-R167 Pionkowski.
On an unknown date, Complainant submitted a $2,029.18 invoice for the Parkside project to Respondent.
Additional Evidence
Complainant testified that on November 07, 2025, Respondent advised that it demolished Complainant’s work to address deficiencies behind it, and that payment would not be remitted as a result. Complainant was never afforded an opportunity to inspect or correct the complained of work.
Mr. Seeber testified that he did not observe any deficiencies when he first inspected Complainant’s work, but later discovered that Complainant had not used approved materials on the job. Per Mr. Seeber, Complainant had been required to provide progress photos during the execution of his scope of work, and had failed to do so. Mr. Seeber opined that had Complainant done so, he would have been able to address the noncompliance at the time and had Complainant correct it – resulting in his payment.
Mr. Borreli testified that a verbal Change Order was approved for Complainant’s installation of the 2x4 on the Parkside project, but that $600.00 was deducted from Complainant’s projected payment due to payment made to another subcontractor to remediate Complainant’s work. Per Mr. Borreli, Respondent did not discover issues with Complainant’s work until the project’s owner brough it to their attention on or about February 09, 2026.
Closing Arguments
In closing, Respondent argued that Complainant tried to hide poor work and denied owing additional payment to Complainant.
In closing, Complainant argued that had he been afforded an opportunity to inspect or correct the alleged poor work he would have, but because Respondent failed to produce any evidence to corroborate its contention that it paid another subcontractor $600.00 to make repairs to his work, Complainant was not inclined to believe such work ever occurred.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
This matter lies within the Registrar’s jurisdiction. The matter was properly brought before OAH.
The purpose of the Registrar’s licensing statutes is to protect the public from unscrupulous, unqualified, and financially irresponsible contractors.
The Registrar may resolve contractual disputes if such resolution in ancillary to its regulatory mission and may penalize a contractor’s license by ordering payment of restitution if a proven statutory violation was not remedied by corrective action.
The Notice of Hearing the Registrar mailed to Respondent’s address of record is sufficient, and Respondent is deemed to have received notice of the hearing in this matter. Because the Registrar mailed all correspondence to Respondent in the same manner and failed to receive any mail returned as undeliverable, Respondent is deemed to have received all correspondence regarding this matter from the Registrar as well.
Complainant bears the burden of proof to establish cause for the Registrar to discipline Respondent’s license by a preponderance of the evidence. Respondent bears the burden to establish factors in mitigation of the penalty and affirmative defenses by the same evidentiary standard.
“A preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.” A preponderance of the evidence is “[t]he greater weight of the evidence, not necessarily established by the greater number of witnesses testifying to a fact but by evidence that has the most convincing force; superior evidentiary weight that, though not sufficient to free the mind wholly from all reasonable doubt, is still sufficient to incline a fair and impartial mind to one side of the issue rather than the other.”
Statutes should be interpreted to provide a fair and sensible result. Statutes shall be liberally construed to affect their objects and to promote justice.
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1129.02(A) provides, in pertinent part, that “[p]erformance by a subcontractor in accordance with the provisions of a construction contract entitles the subcontractor to payment from the party with whom the subcontractor contracts.”
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1129.02(B) provides, in pertinent part, that “[i]f a subcontractor has performed in accordance with the provisions of a construction contract, the contractor shall pay to its subcontractors within seven days of receipt by the contractor of each progress payment, retention release or final payment, the full amount received for such subcontractor’s work and materials supplied based on work completed or materials supplied under the subcontract.”
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(10) holds, in pertinent part, that among the grounds for suspension or revocation of a contractor’s license is a “[f]ailure by [the] licensee . . . to pay monies in excess of seven hundred fifty dollars when due for materials or services rendered in connection with the licensee’s operations as a contractor when the licensee has the capacity to pay, if the licensee lacks the capacity to pay, when the licensee has received sufficient monies as payment for the particular construction work project or operation for which the services or materials were rendered or purchased.”
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1156.01 states, in pertinent part, that after a hearing an Administrative Law Judge may provide restitution to any person who is injured by an action of a licensee.
In the case at bar, the Tribunal is tasked with determining how much money Complainant is owed by Respondent, if any, and if so, whether said debt(s) constitute a violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(10) for which Respondent’s license should be lawfully disciplined by the Registrar.
Upon review of the record, the relevant evidence establishes that Complainant has sustained its burden of proof by the requisite evidentiary standard.
The underlying invoice at issue and corresponding text messages between the parties support Complainant’s allegation(s) against Respondent, particularly in the absence of any evidence presented by Respondent to corroborate its allegations of poor workmanship against Complainant. It is uncontroverted from the credible and relevant evidence of record that Complainant performed the work as requested by Respondent, and that Respondent approved of it immediately after completion and instructed Complainant to submit an invoice for payment.
Therefore, the only issue remaining is whether Respondent raised a sufficient justification or excuse for failing to timely remit the $2,029.18 balance due on the outstanding invoice at issue. This is an affirmative defenses that Respondent bears the burden to establish. The Tribunal is not at liberty to make presumptions in favor of Respondent or accept facts in mitigation on behalf of Respondent that are not supported by the evidence. Here, the record reflects that Respondent failed to act in any degree and had no affirmative defense(s) for doing so. It is also perplexing why Respondent failed to pay Complainant for approximately three and a half (3.5) months, only to allege poor workmanship after repeated attempts by Complainant to collect on the outstanding invoice. Respondent’s argument that Complainant “tried to hide poor work” is a meritless accusation. Respondent provided no evidence to establish that Complainant used incorrect materials and/or poorly executed the scope of its work on the Parkside project.
Because Complainant has established Respondent’s statutory violation(s) of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(10) by a preponderance of the evidence, Complainant has also established cause for the Registrar to discipline Respondent’s ROC License No. 338654.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
In view of the foregoing,
IT IS RECOMMENDED that on the effective date of the Final Order in this matter, Respondent CB Remodeling LLC, ROC License No. 338654, shall suspended and remain in an inactive status until the licensee provides the Registrar with sufficient proof that $2,029.18 has been tendered to Complainant in certified funds as restitution.
IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that after the Registrar has received Respondent’s proof of payment(s) to Complainant, Complaint 2025-12085 may be closed with prejudice.
NOTICE
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, February 24, 2026.
Office of Administrative Hearings
/s/ Jenna Clark
Administrative Law Judge
Transmitted electronically to:
Tom Cole, Director
c/o Legal Department
Registrar of Contractors
1700 W. Washington St., Ste. 105
Phoenix, AZ 85007-2812
[email redacted]
James Ralph Tanner, Complainant
10201 N. 19th Ave.
Phoenix, AZ 85021
[email redacted]
CB Remodeling, LLC, Respondent
P.O. Box 8454
Surprise, AZ 85374
[email redacted]
[email redacted]
By: OAH Staff