ALJDEC - Licensing
2025A-12241-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2026-05-18
IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
Sean Hagan,
COMPLAINANT
v.
Arizona Professional Roofing & Construction LLC
License No. ROC 326419,
RESPONDENT
No. 2025A-12241-CHC-ROC
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION
HEARING: May 6, 2026
APPEARANCES: Investigator David Fagerburg on behalf of the Registrar of Contractors. Complainant Sean Hagan on behalf of himself. Luiz Lopez, Qualifying Party, on behalf of Arizona Professional Roofing & Construction LLC.
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Fahd Nazir
EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: Administrative notice was taken of the hearing packet submitted by the Registrar of Contractors. Complainant Exhibits 1 through 3 admitted.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Arizona Professional Roofing and Construction LLC (Respondent) is the holder of License No. 326419 issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (Registrar).
On or about April 10, 2024, Sean Hagan (Complainant) signed a contract with Respondent for, among other things, roof repair. The written contract did not contain the following elements:
The name of the contractor and the contractor’s business address and license number.
The estimated date of completion of all work to be performed under the contract.
A description of the work to be performed under the contract.
The dollar amount of any advance deposit paid or scheduled to be paid to the contractor by the owner.
That the property owner has the right to file a written complaint with the registrar for an alleged violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat § 32-1154(A).
On or about November 11, 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 David Fagerburg.
On December 8, 2025, the Registrar issued a Warning Letter to Respondent for prima facie violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1158.
After a jobsite inspection on January 22, 2026, at which Responded was not present, Investigator Fagerberg issued a written directive on February 10, 2026, 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 Thursday March 5, 2026. . . .
Investigator Notes: 1: Upon reviewing the written contract submitted by the complainant I am able to verify there is at least 1 of the 9 minimum elements of a contract missing violating ARS §32- 1158 (A) Minimum elements of a contract. Specifically #1, #4, #5, #7 and #9. Warning letter issued. 2: After this jobsite investigation the complainant provided a copy of roof inspection report indicating numerous deficiencies that are not included on the complaint form and will not be addressed. . . .
DIRECTIVE REQUIREMENTS
You are directed to remedy the following violations by the appropriate means:
Complaint Item 1: The shingle paths are currently leaking at the roof penetrations north side
Investigator’s Observation: At this jobsite investigation on the roof of the home the complainant showed me that there is no flashing installed around the north HVAC unit and swamp cooler ductwork roof penetrations. See P (5) thru P (9) and P (18). The respondent shall correct the missing flashing at the roof penetrations on the north HVAC unit and swamp cooler ductwork and ensure there are no leaks by appropriate means. . . .
Complaint Item 2: The shingle paths are currently leaking at the roof penetrations south side.
Investigator’s Observation: At this jobsite investigation on the roof of the home the complainant showed me that there is no flashing installed around the south HVAC unit ductwork roof penetration. See P (3) and P (4). The respondent shall correct the missing flashing at the roof penetration for the HVAC ductwork on the south HVAC unit and ensure there are no leaks by appropriate means. . . .
Complaint Item 3: Rolled roof not installed correctly under flashing Investigator’s Observation: At this jobsite investigation on the covered patio flat roof of the home the complainant showed me that the rolled roofing has been cut short at the parapet wall flashing and caulking or other material was applied to cover the splice at the area under the flashing. See P (12) thru P (14). The respondent shall correct the rolled roofing that is not installed correctly under the flat roof flashing at the parapet wall by appropriate means. . . .
Complaint Item 4: scupper drains installed incorrectly Investigator’s Observation: At this jobsite investigation on the covered patio flat roof of the home the complainant showed me a roof scupper that appears to have been incorrectly repaired and not replaced with excessive caulking, a hole and gaps around what appears to be a splice in the scupper material near the entrance to the scupper. See P (12) thru P (14). The respondent shall correct the scupper drains installed incorrectly with holes and gaps by appropriate means. . . .
Complaint Item 6: shingle path and the tile roof and is installed without the proper cricket and flashings north and south Investigator’s Observation: At this jobsite investigation on the ridge line of the home the complainant showed me where the underlayment is not sealed properly on both sides of the ridge line which may allow wind driven rain to penetrate under the flashing. See P (10) and P (11). The respondent shall correct by appropriate means. . . .
Complaint Item 7: Damage to living room ceiling due to drainage north side -drywall work and new insulation required + paint and Texture
Investigator’s Observation: At this jobsite investigation I observed evidence of water damage at the living room ceiling drywall. See P (19) and P (20). The area is directly below the north HVAC unit and swamp cooler on the roof. The respondent cannot perform or subcontract the drywall corrective work under ROC 326419 CR-42 Roofing license and shall resolve the damaged caused to the living room ceiling drywall by other means. . . .
Complaint Item 8: damage to kitchen ceiling due to drainage south side drywall work and new insulation required + paint & texture Investigator’s Observation: At this jobsite investigation I observed evidence of water damage at the kitchen ceiling drywall. See P (21) and P (22). The area is directly below the south HVAC unit on the roof. The respondent cannot perform or subcontract the drywall corrective work under ROC 326419 CR-42 Roofing license and shall resolve the damaged caused to the kitchen ceiling drywall by other means. . . .
Complaint Item 9: damage to underside of patio roof drywall, require new patch work, and texture
Investigator’s Observation: At this jobsite investigation I observed evidence of water damage at the covered patio ceiling drywall. The area is directly below the flat roof scupper that was not properly repaired. During this jobsite investigation the complainant acknowledged drywall repairs were made after the respondent performed the work and prior to the new leaks. See P (23) and P (24). The respondent cannot perform or subcontract the drywall corrective work under ROC 326419 CR-42 Roofing license and shall resolve the damaged caused to the covered patio ceiling drywall by other means. . . .
Complaint Item 10: Elastomere was provided as solution for use of leftover material from previous job to cover error - shortens roof life Investigator’s Observation: At this jobsite investigation I had no knowledge as to whether or not elastomeric coating was used as a solution for use of leftover material from previous job. The complainant did not provide any documentation from the manufacturer of the underlayment that elastomeric coating shortens the roof life. During this jobsite investigation the complainant showed me where there are 2 different colors of elastomeric coating used. The area is covered by roof tiles and is not visible without removing the roof tiles. Under the roof tiles the complainant showed me staples securing the underlayment that are not properly sealed and stated cap nails should have been used. See P (15) thru P (17). The respondent shall correct the underlayment with exposed staples that are not properly sealed by appropriate means. . . .
Additional Requirements:
The respondent shall submit a sample copy of a revised written contract to this investigator that includes all 9 minimum elements of a contract over $1,000.00 per ARS §32-1158 (A) Minimum elements of a contract by the compliance date listed above. . . .
After the deadline in the directive expired, Investigator Fagerburg contacted Complainant for an update and was told that Respondent made no attempt to comply with the Written Directive. Therefore, Investigator Fagerburg forwarded the Complaint to the Registrar’s Legal Department.
The Registrar issued a Citation against Respondent on March 12, 2026, 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).
The Registrar referred the matter to the Office of Administrative Hearings, an independent state agency, for an evidentiary hearing.
The Registrar issued a Notice of Hearing, setting a hearing at 9:00 a.m. on May 6, 2026. The Registrar mailed copies of the Notice of Hearing to Respondent at its address and email address of record. On April 1, 2026, an order from the Office of Administrative Hearings advised the parties of how to connect to the hearing via Google Meet. The hearing was held via Google Meet on May 6, 2026.
Investigator Fagerburg testified consistently with the findings contained in the Written Directive. Namely, the contract did not comply with the minimum writing requirement as required under the law and that, overall, the work performed did not meet minimum workmanship requirements. Investigator Fagerburg testified the nine Complaint items remained uncorrected at the conclusion of his investigation.
Complainant agreed with Investigator Fagerburg’s testimony. He testified that Respondent started work prior to a written contract being signed between the parties and that he had been in contact with an individual named “Ramon”. Complainant contended that he continued to exchange text messages during the project and afterwards to coordinate repairs with Respondent through its associates. Complainant asserted that at least one phone number appeared to be the same phone number as on the written contract dated April 10, 2025.
Mr. Lopez testified that prior to filing his Answer with the Registrar, he was not aware of the Complaint filed by Complainant. He testified that he was not aware of the contract and did not perform any of work referenced in the Complaint. Mr. Lopez contended that he reached out to Complainant at the earliest opportunity to resolve the matter, but the repair work had already been performed. He testified that did not contract and/or authorize anyone else to do the work under his license.
It was undisputed that “Ramon” was Mr. Lopez’s father. Mr. Lopez alleged in his written response to the Registrar that his father had not been involved in Respondent’s business operations for several years. However, the greater weight of evidence demonstrated that Respondent, through person(s) previously associated with the company, performed the work referenced in the Complaint. Even assuming that Mr. Lopez was personally unaware of this project, the Administrative Law Judge finds the assertion that Respondent did not contract or perform the work to be without merit.
Administrative notice is taken of Respondent’s prior License record on May 6, 2026. Such prior License record reflects that Respondent’s License No. 326419 was first issued on October 23, 2019, and is active. Such prior License record reflects that there were no other complaints 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.
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).
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 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. 326419 for a period of five (5) days.
It is further recommended that the Registrar require Respondent to pay the sum of $500.00 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.
It is further recommended that, on or before thirty (30) days after the effective date of the final order, Respondent shall provide a sample contract to the Registrar to demonstrate that it has amended its contracts to include the nine terms required by Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1158(A). If Respondent fails to establish to the Registrar that it has brought its contracts into compliance with Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1158(A) within thirty days, its contractor’s license shall be suspended until it demonstrates that it has done so.
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, May 18, 2026.
/s/ Fahd Nazir
Administrative Law Judge
Transmitted by either mail, e-mail, or facsimile to:
Tom Cole, Director
Registrar of Contractors
David Fagerburg
[email redacted]
Sean Hagan
[email redacted]
Arizona Professional Roofing & Construction LLC
[email redacted]
By: OAH Staff