ALJDEC - Licensing

2025A-12579-NPC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2026-06-24

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

Best Choice Heating & Cooling LLC,

COMPLAINANT

v.

True2Form, LLC

License No. ROC 345747,

RESPONDENT

No. 2025A-12579-NPC-ROC

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION

HEARING: June 4, 2026

APPEARANCES: Joshua Arvizu on behalf of Complainant Best Choice Heating & Cooling LLC. Alex Paz, Qualifying Party, on behalf of Respondent True2Form LLC.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Fahd Nazir

EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: Administrative notice was taken of the Hearing Packet submitted by the Registrar of Contractors.

_____________________________________________________________________

FINDINGS OF FACT

True2Form (Respondent) is the holder of License No. 345747 issued by the Registrar of Contractors (Registrar).

On or about December 4, 2024, the Respondent entered into a contract with Best Choice Heating & Cooling LLC (Complainant) for “Ruffin new construction stage.” The total invoice amount was $17,500.00.

On or about December 3, 2025, Complainant filed a Complaint against Respondent with the Registrar alleging that Respondent had failed to pay Complainant the sum of $8,750.00.

The parties were unable to resolve their differences, and Complainant requested an administrative hearing. The Registrar then issued a Citation alleging a possible violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(10).

Mr. Arvizu testified that the total outstanding due to Complainant was $8,750.00. He stated that Complainant started work on or around December 5, 2024, and completed the rough in project/stage 1 on or around December 15, 2024. Mr. Arvizu testified that the total project cost for stage 1 was $17,500.00, of which 50% was deposited by Respondent on or around December 13, 2024. Mr. Arvizu contended that any unfinished work was part of the trim project/stage 2.

Mr. Paz testified that Complainant did not finish the project and, at best, completed only 50% of contracted work. He believed that because Complainant did not complete the project, the 50% deposit paid on or around December 13, 2024, was satisfactory payment.

Mr. Paz contended that Respondent was not paid in full for the project. However, the Administrative Law Judge does not find this assertion credible without more. Namely, Respondent provided no documentary evidence to corroborate its position.

At the hearing, the parties provided conflicting testimony as to completion of work. For example, when asked how Respondent determined the work was not completed, Mr. Paz stated it was because the system Complainant installed was not operational; Complainant however denied the contention. Overall, Complainant’s testimony was specific and consistent, whereas Respondent’s testimony was devoid of specifics and conclusory in nature.

Respondent did not assert that it lacked the capacity to pay the amount Complainant asserted was due.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

The burden of proof at an administrative hearing falls to the party asserting a claim, right, or entitlement and the standard of proof on all issues in these matters is 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.”

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(10) includes among the grounds for suspension, revocation, or other disciplinary action against a contractor’s license,

[f]ailure by a licensee or agent or official of a licensee to pay monies in excess of $750 when due for materials or services rendered in connection with the licensee's operations as a contractor unless the licensee proves that the licensee lacks the capacity to pay and has not received sufficient monies as payment for the particular construction work project or operation for which the services or materials were rendered or purchased.

Considering the evidence as a whole, including witnesses’ testimony and the documentary evidence, the Tribunal adopts Complainant’s position as fact. As such, the evidence established that Respondent owed a total of $8,750.00.

Respondent failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that it lacked the ability to pay Complainant for the work performed.

Therefore, Complainant established that Respondent violated Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(10) by failing to pay Complainant $8,750.00 for services or materials rendered in connection with Respondent’s contracting business.

Based upon Respondent’s violation of the provisions of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(10), grounds exist to impose discipline against Respondent’s license.

RECOMMENDed order

Based on the foregoing, it is recommended that the Registrar suspend Respondent’s License No. 345747 issued by the Registrar until it has provided to the Registrar, and the Registrar has accepted, documents that establish that it has paid Complainant $8,750.00 in certified funds.

It is further recommended that when and if the Registrar receives and accepts Respondent’s evidence that it has paid Complainant $8,750.00 in certified funds, the Registrar may close the complaint in Case No. 2025-12579.

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, June 24, 2026.

/s/ Fahd Nazir

Administrative Law Judge

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

Tom Cole, Director

Registrar of Contractors

True2Form, LLC

[email redacted]

Best Choice Heating & Cooling LLC

[email redacted]

By: OAH Staff