ALJDEC - Licensing

2025A-12633-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2026-07-06

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

Christopher Rexing,

COMPLAINANT

v.

Big Buckle Roofing LLC

License No. ROC 343623,

RESPONDENT

No. 2025A-12633-CHC-ROC

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION

HEARING: June 16, 2026

APPEARANCES: Complainant Christopher Rexing on behalf of himself. Investigator Albert Bernal on behalf of the Registrar of Contractors. No one appeared on behalf of Respondent Big Buckle Roofing LLC.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Fahd Nazir

EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: Administrative notice was taken of the hearing packet.

FINDINGS OF FACT

Big Buckle Roofing LLC (Respondent) is the holder of License No. 343623 issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (Registrar).

On or about September 15, 2025, Christopher Rexing (Complainant) entered into a contract with Respondent for, among other things, new roofing system installation. Work commenced on October 27, 2025, and the project was abandoned on or around November 4, 2025.

On or about December 4, 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 Albert Bernal. After a jobsite inspection on January 7, 2026, at which Respondent was not present, Investigator Bernal issued a Written Directive (Directive) to Respondent on February 9, 2026, 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 Friday, February 27th, 2026. . . .

DIRECTIVE REQUIREMENTS

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

Complaint Item 1: Metal roofing not attached or loose in areas. Screws not properly installed.

Investigator’s Observations: Verified

Metal roofing not attached or loose in areas: Areas shown to me appeared to be appriopiately secured. Minimum up and down movement was noted when pulling by hand

*No correction are required for this item.

b) Multiple Washers were broken and split around the fasteners used to secure the roof, failing to provide the intended seal.

*Respondent shall correct by appropriate means. . . .

Complaint Item 2: Job site not cleaned up and glue overspray on existing roof, Landscaping , Concrete

Investigator’s Observations: Verified. Glued overspray was noted on concrete slab, multiple roofing areas, and on the ground around the perimeter of the residence. Respondent shall correct by appropriate means. . . .

Complaint Item 3: No closer foam at eve side of metal roofing. Incorrect closure foam at ridge cap.

Investigator’s Observations: Verified. Expandable foam strips used to seal roofing areas (ridge) did not provided the intended seal. It was also noted that foam and/ or approved material was not installed at eaves to seal the areas. *Respondent shall correct as per manufacturer’s installation instructions. . . .

Complaint Item 4: Rain gutters not finished

Investigator’s Observations: Verified.

a) Complaint item refers to the gutter’s downspouts. Gutter downspouts that were installed in multiple areas were not a matching color.

b) Drip edge had gaps at the joints that were excessive in width in all corners of the residence’s roof. (Corner areas behind the gutters.) Respondent shall correct by appropriate means. . . .

Complaint Item 5: Crack in existing ceiling drywall during repair to roof structure by contractor

Investigator’s Observations: Verified. Drywall ceiling was cracked. The cracked was readily visible. It appears the crack was caused by the Respondent while working on the roof. Respondent shall correct by appropriate means. . . .

Following the issuance of the Directive, Respondent took no steps to correct the roofing issues. After the deadline in the Directive expired, Investigator Bernal forwarded the matter to the Registrar’s Legal Department.

The Registrar issued a Citation against Respondent on April 8, 2026, charging possible violations of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely Ariz. Admin. Code R4-9-108(A); 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 AM on June 16, 2026. The Registrar mailed copies of the Notice of Hearing to Respondent at its address and email address of record.

A June 11, 2026, Order advised the parties of how to connect to the hearing via Google Meet. The hearing was held via Google Meet on June 16, 2026.

Respondent did not request that the hearing be continued. Although the start of the hearing was delayed 15 minutes, Respondent did not appear through an authorized member, employee, or attorney. Consequently, Respondent did not present any evidence to defend its license.

Investigator Bernal testified that several issues were identified in the roofing system. Namely, hardware issues, glue overspray, no proper seal, gutters unfinished and showing excessive joint gaps, and visible cracking in drywall ceiling.

Complainant agreed with Investigator Bernal’s testimony. Complainant also contended that he attempted to resolve the issue by getting in touch with Respondent on or around November 11, 2025, via phone. The parties met onsite on November 14, 2025, but Respondent was no-call, no-show thereafter.

Administrative notice was taken of Respondent’s prior License record on June 16, 2026. Such prior License record reflects that Respondent’s License No. 343623 was first issued on March 8, 2023, and is active. Such prior License record also reflects that there is one open complaint, two resolved/settled complaints, and six prior complaints resulting in discipline against Respondent’s license.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

This matter lies within the Registrar’s jurisdiction.

The copies of the Notice of Hearing that the Registrar mailed to Respondent at its address and email address of record were reasonable and Respondent is deemed to have received notice of the hearing.

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.”

Respondent did not appear at the jobsite inspection, took no steps to correct the roofing issues, and failed to appear for the hearing to provide additional information. An entity that repeatedly fails to show up for and/or ignore directives by regulatory authorities presents itself as an unregulatable entity.

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 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 revoke Respondent’s License No. 343623.

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.

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 6, 2026.

/s/ Fahd Nazir

Administrative Law Judge

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

Tom Cole, Director

Registrar of Contractors

Albert Bernal

[email redacted]

Christopher Rexing

[email redacted]

Big Buckle Roofing LLC

[email redacted]

[email redacted]

By: OAH Staff