ALJDEC - Licensing

2025A-12226-NPC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2026-04-07

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

Rudy Glass Company Inc,

COMPLAINANT

v.

Sorbon Development LLC

DBA: Built Well,

License No. ROC 304542,

RESPONDENT

No. 2025A-12226-NPC-ROC

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION

HEARING: March 24, 2026

APPEARANCES: John Jehle appeared on behalf of Complainant Rudy Glass Company Inc. Louis D. Lopez, Esq. appeared on behalf of Respondent Sorbon Development LLC.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Adam D. Stone

EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: Complainant’s Exhibits 1-9 and Respondent’s Exhibits 1-4 were admitted into evidence.

_____________________________________________________________________

FINDINGS OF FACT

On November 21, 2025, Complainant, Rudy Glass Company Inc. filed a complaint against Respondent alleging that Respondent, Sorbon Development LLC owed Complainant monies in the amount of $216,043.00.

Through the citation and Notice of Hearing, ROC alleges that Respondent may have violated Ariz. Rev. Stat. section 32-1154(A)(10).

Respondent holds License No. 304542 issued by ROC, and timely provided an Answer on January 6, 2026.

On February 13, 2026, the Registrar of Contractors (“ROC”) issued a Notice of Hearing on Contested Case setting the matter for hearing on March 24, 2026, at the Office of Administrative Hearings.

Mr. Jehle testified that Complainant ordered materials and installed the same on a project for which Respondent was the general contractor. Mr. Jehle also testified that Complainant had been doing business together since 2018, and often, the agreements were verbal.

As to this project, Mr. Jehle testified that Complainant e-mailed Respondent a proposal for the project on June 13, 2024. Mr. Jehle testified too that he drafted this proposal which included terms such as, “proposal good for 30 days”, and “[i]f proposal is accepted, please sign and email back.” Mr. Jehle testified that Respondent never signed nor sent back the proposal.

Mr. Jehle next testified that Complainant purchased the materials, and commenced work at the project site. Mr. Jehle testified that he usually would not invoice for a project until it was completed, however, in this case, he sent an invoice on March 14, 2025, and again on April 4, 2025, to Complainant.

Finally, Mr. Jehle testified that he had not been paid by Respondent and he was unaware of Respondent's termination from the project.

Sam Woods testified on behalf of Respondent. He testified that he was originally hired by Marcia Girard and Johnnie Mathiason to complete two projects. However, on February 25, 2025, Respondent received a notice to stop work at the 3030 Corte Enclave project.

In addition, Mr. Woods testified that he believed the property owners contracted directly with subcontractors on the project, and because of this, he informed Mr. Jehle that he may want to “pre-lien” the property to ensure payment.

Mr. Woods also testified that he was not paid by the property owners for his work on the project, as evidenced by the $300,000.00 check which could not be cashed due to insufficient funds, and Respondent’s accounts receivable statements.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

Unless otherwise provided by law, a party asserting a claim, right, or entitlement bears the burden of proof; a party asserting an affirmative defense has the burden of establishing the affirmative defense. The standard of proof on all issues in this matter is that of a preponderance of the evidence. Ariz. Admin. Code § R2-19-119.

“At a hearing on an agency action to suspend, revoke, terminate or modify on its own initiative material conditions of a license or permit, the agency has the burden of persuasion.” Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 41-1092.07(G)(2).

A preponderance of the evidence is:

The 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.

Black’s Law Dictionary 1373 (10th ed. 2014).

Statutes should be interpreted to provide a fair and sensible result. Gutierrez v. Industrial Commission of Arizona, 226 Ariz. 395, 249 P.3d 1095 (2011)(citation omitted); State v. McFall, 103 Ariz. 234, 238, 439 P.2d 805, 809 (1968) ("Courts will not place an absurd and unreasonable construction on statutes.").

“Statutes shall be liberally construed to effect their objects and to promote justice.” Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 1-211(B).

The purpose of the Registrar’s licensing statutes is to protect the public from unscrupulous, unqualified, and financially irresponsible contractors. See Aesthetic Property Maintenance v. Capital Indem. Corp., 183 Ariz. 74, 900 P. 2d 1210 (1995).

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 or, 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. § 32-1154(A)(10).

In this case, Complainant has not proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent owes Complainant more than $750.00 for materials purchased and work performed in connection with Respondent’s operations as a contractor. Complainant’s own terms of its proposal were that it was supposed to be signed and returned, which it was not. Further, there was no evidence provided by Mr. Jehle that Respondent somehow accepted those terms and agreed to be bound by the same, despite the parties’ previous course of dealings.

Further, even assuming arguendo that there was an agreement, Respondent has proven by a preponderance of the evidence that it had an affirmative defense for non-payment as it was not paid by the property owners for its work on the property.

Therefore, the preponderance of the evidence shows that Respondent has not violated section 32-1154(A)(10).

RECOMMENDED ORDER

IT IS RECOMMENDED that Complainant’s complaint against Respondent be dismissed.

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 7, 2026.

/s/ Adam D. Stone

Administrative Law Judge

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

Tom Cole, Director

Registrar of Contractors

Rudy Glass Company Inc

[email redacted]

Louis D. Lopez, Esq.

GREENBURG TRAURIG, LLP

[email redacted]

By: OAH Staff